THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes 


MEETING 6 


THE SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEW 


OF THE 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


The verbatim transcript of the 6th 


Meeting of the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction 


Review of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held at the Marriott Airport, Hebron, 


Kentucky, on Sept. 12, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES
 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 
 

2 

 6 

C O N T E N T S
 

Sept. 12, 2007 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 


DR. LEWIS WADE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 


MR. MARK GRIFFON, CHAIR 11 


FOURTH SET OF CASES MATRIX 12 


FIFTH SET OF CASES MATRIX 121 


SIXTH SET OF CASES MATRIX 191 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 314 

3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 


or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


-- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 


without reference available. 


-- ^/(inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

 

4

1 

2 

3 

P A R T I C I P A N T S 


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

CLAWSON, Bradley 


Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 


Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 


GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 

5 

ANNOUNCED PARTICIPANTS
 

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 


BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 


BRACKETT, LIZ, ORAU 


BRANCHE, CHRISTINE, NIOSH 


BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH 


CHANG, CHIA-CHIA, NIOSH 


FARVER, DOUG, SC&A 


GUIDO, JOE, ORAU 


HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 


HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


SIEBERT, SCOTT, ORAU 

 

 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

P R O C E E D I N G S
 

(9:00 a.m.) 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL
 

DR. WADE: (by Telephone): This is Lew Wade, 


and I have the privilege as always of serving 


as the Designated Federal Official for the 


Advisory Board. This is a meeting of the 


Subcommittee of the Advisory Board on Dose 


Reconstruction. I’m sorry I can’t be with you 


today. This meeting was scheduled on 


relatively short notice, and I have a 


commitment at the National Academies today 


that I really need to be in D.C. for. 


But Dr. Christine Branche is with you, 


and in my absence when I’m not on the phone 


then she would assume the responsibilities of 


the designated federal official. It’s 


possible I’ll be with you for the entire 


meeting. My involvement over at the Academies 


is over lunch, so it’s possible I won’t be 


absent. But if I am I’ll let you know and 


then Christine will be the designated federal 


official. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

7 

As I mentioned this is a meeting of 


the Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction. It’s 


very ably chaired by Mark Griffon, members 


Gibson, Poston and Munn; alternates Clawson 


and Presley. What I’d like to do is just take 


a brief roll call. We need to establish that 


we have a quorum of the subcommittee. That 


would be three. So either in the room or on 


the phone, Mark Griffon? 


MR. GRIFFON: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Mike Gibson, not with us I 


believe. 

John Poston? 

 (no response) 

DR. WADE (by Telephone): Wanda Munn? 

 (no response) 

DR. WADE (by Telephone): Brad Clawson? 

MR. CLAWSON: Here. 

DR. WADE (by Telephone): Robert Presley? 

MR. PRESLEY: Here. 

DR. WADE (by Telephone): So we have a 

quorum of the subcommittee, and we can 


continue. Just for the record the next 


meeting of the subcommittee is scheduled for 


Wednesday, October 3rd at 9:30 through 11:30. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

That’s the morning of our full Board meeting 


scheduled for Naperville in the beginning of 


October. 


What I’d like to do is just do the 


introductions, and we’ll start with those in 


the room. Then we’ll ask for other members of 


the NIOSH/ORAU team on the phone, SC&A team 


members on the phone, other feds who are 


working on the phone call, members of Congress 


or their representatives, workers or their 


representatives or anyone who would like to be 


identified. 


But let’s start with those in the 


room. Would you please identify yourself and 


your affiliation? 


MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 


MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert with the ORAU 


team. 


DR. BRANCHE: Christine Branche, NIOSH, 


Office of the Director. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld, NIOSH/OCAS. 


MR. PRESLEY: Bob Presley, Advisory Board. 


 MR. FARVER: Doug Farver, SC&A. 


MS. BEHLING: Kathy Behling, SC&A. 


MR. GRIFFON: Mark Griffon, Advisory Board. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

MR. CLAWSON: Brad Clawson, Advisory Board. 


MR. HINNEFELD: That’s everybody in the 


room, Lew. 


DR. WADE (by Telephone): Okay, fine. How 


about out in telephone land, NIOSH or ORAU 


team members? 


MS. BRACKETT (by Telephone): Liz Brackett, 


ORAU team. 


DR. WADE (by Telephone): Any other NIOSH or 


ORAU team members? 


MS. BURGOS (by Telephone): Zaida Burgos, 


NIOSH. 


DR. WADE (by Telephone): Welcome. 


Anyone else, NIOSH/ORAU team? 


 (no response) 


DR. WADE (by Telephone): How about SC&A 


team members? 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): John Mauro, SC&A. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Hans Behling, 


SC&A. 

DR. WADE (by Telephone): Any other SC&A 

team members? 

 (no response) 

DR. WADE (by Telephone): Other federal 

employees who are on the line by virtue of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

their employment? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS (by Telephone): Liz 


Homoki-Titus with HHS. 


DR. WADE (by Telephone): Good morning. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS (by Telephone): Good 


morning. 


MR. KOTSCH (by Telephone): Jeff Kotsch, 


Department of Labor. 

DR. WADE (by Telephone): As always, 

welcome, Jeff. 

Other feds? 

 (no response) 

DR. WADE (by Telephone): Members of 

Congress of their representatives? 


 (no response) 


DR. WADE (by Telephone): Workers or worker 


reps who’d like to be identified? 


 (no response) 


DR. WADE (by Telephone): Anyone else on the 


line who would like to be identified for the 


record? 


 (no response) 


DR. WADE (by Telephone): Just a brief on 


phone etiquette, again, if you’re speaking, 


use a handset, not a speaker phone. Mute 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

whatever instrument you’ve got in your 


possession if you’re not speaking. And be 


mindful of background noises. We’re getting 


better at that, but keep in mind that 


background noise that might be unobtrusive to 


you could be very bothersome to people on the 


line. So keep that in mind. 


And with that, Mark, it’s up to you. 


INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR
 

MR. GRIFFON: I think the agenda’s pretty 


straightforward for this meeting. We’re going 


to try to get through the fourth, fifth and 


sixth set of matrices and the fourth one we 


have a few outstanding things, but they are 


more of the complicated cases. The same with 


the fifth, and then the sixth one is going to 


be our first run through that matrix, so I 


hope everyone on the phone or here has those 


materials. 


I think on the fourth matrix several 


of us in the room are dealing with maybe a 


different version of the matrix. So what I 


wanted to do was go through the fourth matrix 


item by item and make sure that we have a 


response. I’m going to stop when we get to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

the ones where we did have some outstanding 


actions either from NIOSH or from SC&A. I 


know there’s not many, but I just want to make 


sure we run through the matrix one time just 


to make sure I don’t overlook some of the ones 


that we had left as outstanding actions if 


that’s okay. 


 (no response) 


MR. GRIFFON: Not hearing any response I 


guess it’s okay. 


FOURTH SET OF CASES MATRIX
 

So I have on my first page of the 


matrix, Case 61. Are there any -- maybe I’ll 


do it that way, just Case Number 61. Are 


there anything looking down, are there 


anything that we didn’t resolve on that? 


MR. HINNEFELD: I want to make sure that the 


version you have has this edit. In the 


version I have on 61.4. 


MR. GRIFFON: Sixty-one point four, yes. 


MR. HINNEFELD: That NIOSH feels that feels 


that x-ray exams at AWEs were most likely PA 


exams, and OTIB-004 says that. But since 


OTIB-004 provides an overestimating technique, 


its most recent revision directs the use of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

PFG as an overestimating technique, PFG being 


photofluorographic examination. And so 


because of that we don’t feel that any action 


is necessary on those cases that were done 


with the old version of OTIB-004. 


MR. GRIFFON: All right, going on to 62. In 


62.5 there’s a change, right, Stu, a recent 


edit on that one? I have in red here, 


“Claimant-specific data was received after the 


claim was assessed.” 


MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


MR. GRIFFON: Maybe, we’ve already discussed 


that. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I think what I deleted, I 


deleted the phrase “NIOSH agrees” because the 


finding was failure to assess the claimant’s 


specific information, and we didn’t have it. 


We got it after the claim was done, so we 


didn’t feel we had made a mistake. That was 


the only reason I changed it. 


MR. GRIFFON: And was there something 


changed in 62.7? NIOSH is re-evaluating the 


case. I guess --


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, since this was one of 


those TIB 004 compensable cases, and we don’t 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

plan to do anything on those cases unless the 


Department of Labor asks us to. 


MR. GRIFFON: And 62.8, is that the same? 


Yes, the same edit there so there’s no need to 


re-evaluate because it was a compensable 


claim. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Right, the finding was 


bounding, including potential radiological 


incidents. 


MR. GRIFFON: As I’m moving through this, 


too, we might have some final things to clean 


up with regard -- and we don’t have to do it 


here, but I’m looking at several things that 


are unranked and maybe I’ll have to work with 


Kathy on how, if they’re going to remain 


unranked or why they’re unranked or --


 MS. BEHLING: I think the responses just 


went ^, and they are ranked. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, okay. Under review is 


not -- okay. 


I’m up to 63. And this is, I had 


NIOSH agrees, and Stu says NIOSH neither 


agrees or disagrees. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the finding was about 


is it appropriate to use OTIB-004 for ET2, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

Extra Thoracic Respiratory Tract, because it 


excluded the lung, OTIB-004, the version that 


was used in the ^ excluded its use for the 


lung. It didn’t say anything about Extra 


Thoracic respiratory tract, and yet, this one 


was, I think this is one of those compensable 


TIB-004s as well. But the current, you know, 


since the case was done, TIB-004 has been 


revised to no longer exclude the lung. I 


don’t know that it would ever work since 


there’s no, I don’t know that we’d ever be 


able to use it for a lung, but it doesn’t 


specifically exclude the lungs. And since 


that revision’s been made, I think the finding 


has been rendered moot about whether you’d 


have to make a judgment or should the lung 


exclusion also exclude ET2 region. Since it 


doesn’t exclude the lung anymore, the question 


just kind of went away. 


MR. GRIFFON: Can I reword this response 


just because I think that, what if we said 


NIOSH has revised TIB-004 to address this 


issue? 


MR. HINNEFELD: That’s fine. 


MR. GRIFFON: Rather than --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

MR. HINNEFELD: Whatever --


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it’s a little awkward. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Makes me sound sort of 


ambivalent there, but I’m an ambivalent sort 


of person. 


MR. GRIFFON: Sixty-four, now 64.5 I see a 


new response here for, at least on my version. 


Oh, this is the --


MR. HINNEFELD: Same response. 


MR. GRIFFON: -- the X-ray, okay. So we’ve 


got that. 


On 65 I think we do have some 


outstanding work here. First, 65.3 though, 


this is the X-ray thing, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


MR. GRIFFON: On in 65.4, what’s this note 


for that? 


MR. HINNEFELD: That’s the, ingestion is not 


an overriding issue I believe is on the 


Procedures work group. 


MR. GRIFFON: I’m not sure where it falls 


out but we don’t want to miss it. Is this one 


of those generic overriding --


MR. HINNEFELD: There were three that we 


talked about at the last Procedures work group 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

meeting --


MR. GRIFFON: Resuspension --


MR. HINNEFELD: -- resuspension, ingestion 


and dose from fission products, and internal 


dose from fission products. So the thought 


being since it’s procedural, which is 


universal, that may be more efficient to 


address it there as opposed on a specific dose 


reconstruction. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. The only concern I have 


on these is that the ingestion and 


resuspension, not so much the fission 


products, the action item for NIOSH to develop 


a generic approach to those issues came up in 


the Bethlehem Steel discussions. So now it’s 


in the procedures review I feel like it’s 


being, the ball’s being pushed down the road a 


little. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I hope. It hasn’t 


been resolved yet. I mean, that’s the 


comment, but I can only say that Jim has a 


lead on it, and he certainly knows he has the 


lead on it. And, in fact, he has recently, 


certainly with the resuspension question, has 


engaged in that and is starting, you know, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

rebuild the background, find out exactly the 


history of the finding. So there is work 


underway, but I’ve got nothing else to report. 


MR. GRIFFON: I mean, I guess one would 


wonder from the outside, you know, cases 


continue to be processed and these two 


overriding generic issues hanging out there, 


obviously they’re not going to, I mean, either 


you’re going to end up reworking a lot of 


cases or they’re going to, you’re going to 


make them fit, like you’ve already done. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we’re not very good at 


doing that, but the ingestion question I think 


is, you know, in terms of when it comes up, it 


only comes up really without bioassay data 


because without bioassay data, you make the 


most favorable interpretation of the intake 


mode in terms of bioassay data. So first of 


all there are not a bazillion cases that are 


still being done using it. 


There are quite a number that were 


done with it that are now done and if we 


change those they have to be reworked anyway. 


But it’s not in use to a great degree I don’t 


think in cases currently being done. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

Certainly, they’re being done some, but it’s 


not real high usage, so I don’t know that 


there’s that many cases we’re essentially 


proceeding to put at risk of rework by 


continuing to ^. 


MR. GRIFFON: So we’re up to 66. It looks 


like your other comments, 66.4 X-ray response 


again. 


And then 67, I know we have extensive 


work on this one so this is the first one with 


a lot of, where you went back and reworked 


some of the internal dose calculations, et 


cetera. So maybe we can start there. I’m not 


sure if it’s 67.6. Is that the first? 


 MS. BEHLING: I believe it’s 67.6, yes. 


I guess our finding on 67.6 had to do 


with the triangular distribution that was put 


into the workbook and the fact that the 


workbook uses a minimum-maximum that 


encompasses the entire geometric, or all of 


the exposure geometries as opposed to just ^. 


And for this particular workbook the EDCW 


version 21 and everything prior to that, that 


range, incorrect range of DCF values was 


incorporated into the workbook and what was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

interesting in this particular case I felt was 


you did rework, I believe, the photon dose 30­

250 photon dose using the correct DCF values. 


But then it seemed like you went on to make 


changes to the low energy photon dose which we 


really didn’t have an issue with the low 


energy photon dose. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and that’s on our list 


of things where we owe you technical 


information. It’s on the matrix where we 


still owe you a technical response on that. I 


could speak briefly to the question of that 


use of a different low energy photon. The low 


energy photon range was originally developed 


to cover the entire, less than 30 keV range. 


So as you can imagine when you get 


down into the 10 keV, as far down as they have 


the numbers, you have some quite large 


adjustment factors that are far different than 


even a 30 keV photon would be. So it’s quite 


a broad range when you cover everything under 


30 keV in these photon dose ^. So because of 


that there was a decision made to develop a 


set of dose conversion factors for plutonium 


specifically, and it’s a 17 keV photon. I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

think 20 was used because that was a 


tabulation rather than a table of data, a 


chart of data. 


So it was the tabular value that was 


close yet conservative, meaning 20’s organ DCF 


would be marginally or very slightly higher 


than 17 keVs. So that set was developed at 


the time the glovebox TIB was being prepared 


and so that’s where they were put. Glovebox 


TIB has since been revised and those DCFs are 


now in IT001. 


Now the question is why, when do you 


use less than 30 and when do us use this 


plutonium-specific DCF. And that’s what we 


need to provide for you guys is the technical 


rationale and basis and essentially where’s 


the guidance at for doing that. 


 MS. BEHLING: The other thing I had 


questioned on this particular case is the fact 


that you did go back to, when this dose 


reconstruction was initially done, the version 


two of the implementation document had not 


been published at that time. So the table 


that you’re talking about, which I believe 


4.1A, was not in the implementation guide. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

But now that you’re going back and looking at 


this again you are incorporating -- because I 


think the DCF changed from like 0.06 to a 


0.024 or something like that. And as I said 


that really wasn’t even an issue that we had 


addressed here. We were only addressing the 


photons 30 to 250. So we were somewhat 


surprised that you went in and made this 


change to the low energy photons. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, and that’s why what we 


need is a coherent explanation of why, you 


know, why do that. You know, where’s the 


guidance that says don’t use less than 30, use 


the plutonium-specific. And that’s what we 


need. 


MR. GRIFFON: So that’s going to be an 


outstanding item? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it’s an open item on my 


version of the potential additional 


information. 


MR. GRIFFON: We’re hoping we can get that 


before our next meeting. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I’m hoping, yeah. 


MR. GRIFFON: Let me go back just for a 


second to 67.3. I’m looking at your revised 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

answer or edited answer rather. It says, “but 


the HPAREH records are complete and 


consistent.” 


MR. HINNEFELD: 67.03? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I’m always troubled 


when I see that kind of language. What’s our 


basis for saying these records are complete 


and consistent? The individual DRs --


MR. HINNEFELD: This person here, this 


finding was based on the fact that the totals 


on the, you know, from Savannah River we get 


the print-by-print or report-by-report. It’s 


not necessarily every read, but we get reportby-report that tells us they’re generally 


quarterly totals. And when you would sum the 


quarters from where you found this guy’s name 


underlined, and you found the quarters summed, 


it didn’t total the total that was in the 


annual total that was in the HPAREH. 


What had happened was Savannah River 


when they had marked this sheet and sent it to 


us, they had underlined the wrong name on the 


individual read sheet. And fortunately, the 


correct name was on that same sheet so we had 


the correct result. And when we took the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

correct person’s result for that quarter, they 


did in fact sum with HPAREH. So in this 


instance that’s what I meant by that. 


MR. GRIFFON: I’m just going to say about 


the individual’s HPAREH records are 


consistent. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Fine, fine. 


MR. GRIFFON: When you read these summary 


statements sometimes you get the wrong idea. 


All right, moving on to 67.8 I think 


is the next one or 67.7? Well, 67.7 has an 


additional response. 


 MS. BEHLING: I believe we were questioning, 


if I read this correctly, we were questioning 


why you stopped after 1979, but... 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it does sound right. I 


think the written explanation said something 


like after that it would have been less than a 


minimum or something. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, that was it. It does 


say that although I believe that the earlier 


calculated by the OTIB-007 procedure does 


indicate in here that prior to 1980 or after 


1980 most facilities stopped the practice of 


subtracting out that so that is appropriate I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

think. 

MR. GRIFFON: So 67.7’s okay? 

 MS. BEHLING: It’s okay. 

MR. GRIFFON: Sixty-seven point eight? Oh, 

this is the fission product question. This is 


going to be, this can go on to the Procedures 


review. I think as long as we see, we’ll 


track it --


MR. HINNEFELD: As an initial set of ^. 


MR. GRIFFON: That’s fine. 


Sixty-seven point nine then is the 


internal I think, right? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. And I believe NIOSH 


provided us with quite a bit of response to 


this finding, 67.9. And our finding was 


inappropriate solubility class assumed for 


calculating internal doses. 


MR. GRIFFON: I guess the question I had 


just while Kathy’s reading this. The question 


I had when I looked at this, Stu, was just to 


understand the IMBA runs that you provided. 


These were done for this subcommittee, right? 


They weren’t archived. They weren’t from the 


original work. I think in a couple instances 


you said when it was an original run from the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

dose reconstructor’s work. But in these cases 


I think you went back and you basically 


provided the IMBA runs to demonstrate your, 


that the approach, to support your approach. 


MR. HINNEFELD: To be honest with you I 


don’t know. 


MR. SIEBERT: I think that’s actually 


correct because we didn’t, we don’t keep all 


the different example runs. We may have run 


to rule things out. We actually submit the 


run that actually is used in dose 


reconstruction. So the initial runs were done 


at the time of the dose reconstruction is our 


assumption by the dose reconstructor. We just 


reconstructed them to give to you to 


demonstrate that it was correct. 


MR. GRIFFON: And you, just on the O drive 


or whatever you would put your final IMBA runs 


that you used. 


MR. SIEBERT: Correct. 


 MS. BEHLING: And Hans is on the line, and 


if he wants to add anything to this particular 


case, we worked on this together. Hans 


actually had worked this particular case. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yeah, let me 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

raise a couple of questions. I think the 


issue is one of were these calculations that 


are now here, presented here to justify what 


was done. Were they done at the time of dose 


reconstruction? I think I just got the 


answer, but I’m not convinced that necessarily 


is the case. 


But the other issue that I do have a 


problem with in a sense where there is a 


justification based on the inconsistency by 


which a urine data that would assume a 


different timeframe would give you a higher 


dose subsequently based on chest count. And 


then I have to take some exception to that. 


Even if you were to take Type S for chest 


count and to make certain assumptions but 


realizing that this individual worked for a 


long number of years. 


And even if you have Type S inhaled, 


it’s not going to stay there forever, and 


realizing the timeframe of employment, the 


potential exposure that took place years 


earlier would not show up in a chest count. 


So I don’t necessarily agree with the 


justification for assuming that there has to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

be some consistency between urine data and 


chest count data simply based on the timeframe 


during which these exposures could have taken 


place. 


 MS. BEHLING: And I guess the other issue 


with comparing this to the chest count data is 


if you go back into the site profile for 


Savannah River under Section 4.2.2. It does 


indicate there, in general, chest counting MDA 


should not be used to determine potential 


undetected intakes of plutonium if uranium --


if urinalysis data are available. So that was 


another reason why we were questioning this 


comparison of urinalysis data to the chest 


count. 


MR. GRIFFON: That’s why I was curious if 


these old runs are archived because I think 


what you’re saying here is that the chest 


counts were used not to reconstruct the dose 


necessarily, but to show, to sort of look at 


what would be bounding or what would be 


reasonable as far as your urinalysis data I 


think is what you’re saying. But my question 


is did the DR, did the dose reconstructor ever 


do that originally or do you just kind of get, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

you know, it kind of worked out that way and 


worked good this time. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think Scott can 


speak to this because Scott is an internal 


dosimetrist, and I believe what he said was 


that they do a number of samples on this to 


see which one fits, and then they submit the 


one that fits. So now, and the ones that 

didn’t fit --

MR. GRIFFON: So I think this is a unique, 

this is a little unique. I mean, you’ve got a 


case where you’re clearly going away from your 


sort of a standard practice which would be 


like to split your difference in your intake 


dates. And if you don’t, you know, you’ve got 


cases where you’re assigning intakes the day 


before and you run a sample, and you’re saying 


that it’s because it fits the data better. 


But I think in this kind of circumstance I 


would say additionally, we’ve got lung count 


data and that also supports our case. 


MR. SIEBERT: So you’re saying it could have 


been explained better in the dose 


reconstruction that the lung counts were used 


for limiting purposes. Is that what you’re --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

MR. GRIFFON: There’s a lot of, I mean, --


MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t see a set of intakes 


that match this data other than, you know, 


that would end up with Type S intake that 


would match this data. Is that what you’re 


proposing, that these could, in fact, have 


been Type S intakes? 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Let me make a 


couple points clear here. In your response it 


says the Type S intake based only on urine 


predicts the May 27, 1975 chest count by an 


approximate factor of ten. But realize that 


this individual started employment in 1952. 


The chest count took place in 1975 so we’re 


talking a total of 23 year timeframe. 


And even if he were to inhale, let’s 


say early on in the ‘50s and ‘60s Type S, you 


won’t see it in the chest count in 1975. So I 


don’t take that particular statement as being 


a strong piece of evidence to say that there 


has to be consistency between urine and chest 


count data. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, but if he had inhaled 


Type S early in his employment and then had 


not had any additional plutonium exposure, he 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

wouldn’t have had the plutonium urine data 


that he had, right? 


MR. SIEBERT: Right, if he was being 


monitored by urinalysis, the assumption would 


be he was being exposed during that timeframe. 


And I don’t, Liz might want to jump in on 


this, but I don’t know if I necessarily agree 


that Type S is not appropriate, say that we 


can limit it out with chest counting because 


it is long retained in the chest. 


MS. BRACKETT (by Telephone): Right, 


actually I was just doing some runs on IMBA 


because that’s specifically why they do lung 


counting is to make sure that it’s not, you 


know, that it wasn’t Type S, that it’s not 


being retained in the lungs. So it stays 


there for a very, very long time. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): I mean, let’s 


assume that this guy took his intake in 1960 


and then was chest counted in ’75, would you 


expect it still to be there? 


MS. BRACKETT (by Telephone): Yes. 


MR. GRIFFON: It depends on --


MR. HINNEFELD: If he was providing --


MS. BRACKETT (by Telephone): It depends on, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

I mean, I don’t know the details of this case, 


what the intake was, but, yes, that could 


certainly be --


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yeah, a massive 


intake would, but we’re not talking about 


massive intakes. We’re just basically looking 


at americium as a surrogate, and I have a 


tough time, and as I said as Kathy mentioned 


if you look at, for instance, the site profile 


it says, and on page 76, in general, chest 


counting MDAs should not be used to determine 


potential undetected intakes of plutonium if 


urinalysis data are available. 


MS. BRACKETT (by Telephone): And you’re 


interpreting that the opposite way in which it 


was intended. What that means, it says it 


should not be used for undetected dose. That 


the reason is that the MDA is so large that 


you would over-predict what the person could 


have had. If you have positive results then 


that’s fine, but if you have, if there’s 


nothing detected, it’s not appropriate to base 


a missed dose on that because it’s so large 


compared to what urine samples can see. 


And so that is what that is intended 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

to mean. And, in fact, since americium is 


what’s being used, americium is growing in 


over time, and you would expect to be able to 


detect a Type S intake later on because you 


are increasing your americium over time. 


MR. SIEBERT: And that’s actually frequently 


what we saw in the DOE complex. The later on 


chest counting did demonstrate intakes that 


weren’t seen by urine earlier on. 


MS. BRACKETT (by Telephone): Right, because 


the further in time you go, the more likely 


you are to detect the Type S intake because of 


the americium. 


MR. GRIFFON: I don’t actually disagree with 


the, that calculating how much could have been 


there and the use of the lung for bounding. I 


just was curious whether this one is actually, 


you know, that there’s nothing telling a 


dosimetrist if you, you know, like how much of 


your work, you know, it’s the question on an 


exam, show your work, you know? If you’d just 


throw this final run at me I’d say, geez, I 


have a lot of questions on this. Like why, 


like the ones we had. I mean, why do you have 


these intakes the day before --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34 

DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): And also let me 


weigh in on this one, and I think, Mark, you 


alluded to this. Maybe this time you got 


lucky that the question is was this 


calculation done ahead of time to justify the 


original assumption of a couple days before 


the bioassay as a way of saying, okay, we know 


that if we do anything else it will not match 


the subsequent data involving chest counting. 


The question is was this done, obviously, up 


front, and if not, to what extent would there 


be other instances. Let’s assume the chest 


count had never been done. What would be the 


justification then to, and would you have done 


what was done and still assume the dates for 


intake would have been just a day or two 


beforehand. Let’s just hypothetically raise 


that question. What would the dose 


reconstructor have done had there not been a 


chest count that would provide some credence 


to your explanation? And I’m not convinced 


that this is not a recurrent issue. That is, 


if you have an acute intake, let’s just for 


simplicity and unclaimant favorably assume the 


intake was a day or two beforehand. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

MS. BRACKETT (by Telephone): Well, the 


direction that they had been give is to assume 


the midpoint between positive results and the 


previous --


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Well, exactly, 


and I agree with that, but in this case as it 


turned out, you were fortunate in saying, 


okay, we can justify the day before even 


though there’s no justification for it based 


on the fact that all of these bioassays were 


stated as routine, and it would be 


outrageously coincidental that just about 


every time there was a routine bioassay the 


intake occurred a couple days ahead of time. 


Either you have then a problem with regard to 


the assumption regarding the intake date or 


the solubility, one or the other. But it’s 


purely a statistical improbability for you to 


make that decision and end it up being 


correct. 


MR. GRIFFON: That’s my point. There’s, I 


think if I were doing this from scratch I’d 


say, you know, because you made some statement 


-- I’m reading this quick. I actually read 


this last night, this seven page Word document 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

that you sent to support this case. But it 


seems to me that you’re making some statements 


about where the person regularly worked, and 


your assumptions on solubility, but then, you 


know, I guess I didn’t see anywhere where 


anybody looked closely at sort of a job 


analysis, area analysis versus this data. 


I mean, why? Why are you seeing this 


unique thing going on? Is there an 


explanation based on the person’s job and type 


of work and what they were working with? And 


clearly there is a problem with the 


assumptions if these intakes are always a day 


or two before an annual, regularly scheduled 


urinalysis. It’s not a special, at least as 


far as I can tell. 


MR. FARVER: I believe you jumped to point 


11, about 11? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I might be overlapping 


with nine and 11 a little bit. 


MR. FARVER: Nine deals with plutonium and 


americium. Eleven deals particularly with 


uranium. I don’t want to confuse the people 


on the phone. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I guess I’m doing nine 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

and 11 kind of together. But I mean did 


anyone, I guess it’s a question. Did anyone 


look at the, is there information on this 


individual’s job? Is there anything in the 


CATI that was reviewed to see if there were 


any incidents? I don’t even know if this was 


a survivor case or a living claimant. It 


doesn’t seem that that was factored in at all. 


It was all fitting the data and based on best 


fit kind of. I just want to understand how it 


was done and whether there would ever be any 


need to sort of explain. This looks a little 


abnormal to us. Let’s go back and look 


further, you know? 


 MS. BEHLING: It certainly would be 


beneficial, at least from our point of view, 


to have some of these files, these working 


files, that disputes some of these we’re 


talking. In fact, sometimes some of the dose 


reconstructors, as you state here, they will 


assume an M and S solubility, and they’ll 


include both those files, and then we can 


verify that. If not, we can run it also, but 


it certainly helps when these files are part 


of the record, can help to avoid these types 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

of questions. 


MR. GRIFFON: It also seems, I mean, we 


wouldn’t be going to this level of detail if 


this case wasn’t a 45-50 percentile case. I 


mean, it’s a best estimate case. If it was a, 


you know, if this was an overestimating 


approach, and you pick these types of intake 


dates and said, well, it doesn’t really matter 


because it maximizes the person’s dose, that 


would be a different scenario. 


I think we wouldn’t question that. 


But you’ve got a best estimate case here that 


you’re providing a lot of information on the 


fit but not a lot of explanations on what the 


person did and what they worked with and how 


you justified these solubility assumptions and 


intake assumptions. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Let me just 


finalize that. I think we can go on. We’re 


not going to contest the final bottom line 


that says, okay, based on the chest count data 


that the final bottom line assessment is 


correct, but when we deal with solubility, as 


the regulation specifies, that when we don’t 


have a clear-cut understanding or definitive 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

data that would suggest one solubility over 


another you choose the one that’s claimant 


favorable. In this case it would have been 


Type S. 


And let’s assume for a moment that 


there hadn’t been a chest count in 1975. The 


real question now is, and it’s a hypothetical 


question, would the dose reconstructor have 


done the same thing without necessarily being 


able to support it with a chest count that was 


just fortunately there to justify in a back 


fitting sense. And that’s really the bottom 

line question. 

MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, that hypothetical I can 

answer you off the top of my head. We would 


not have limited by chest count that doesn’t 


exist. And this person probably would have 


been assumed a much large plutonium intake and 


probably would have been over 50 percent. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Well, that’s 


the issue I’m just not convinced that would 


have been the case, that had there not been a 


chest count whether the assumption of a Type M 


would have been applied regardless and without 


necessarily giving the benefit of the doubt. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

That’s the question. 


MR. SIEBERT: Well, I can tell you I 


personally have done many cases where we have 


actually done that, given very large intakes 


like that because we did not have chest counts 


to limit it and come up with compensation 


decision that was favorable to the claimant. 


We consistently did that. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Frequently, 


when we do the dose reconstruction audit, we 


actually look behind the scenes. And 


frequently it’s clear that both solubility 


types would have been tested, and then you 


would have obviously checked for whether or 


not the higher one was used. And in this case 


we didn’t see that, and I’m not sure we saw 


the justification based on chest count. It is 


now obviously part of the matrix and response, 


but what extent that piece of information was 


part of the dose reconstructor’s logic is open 


to question. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Our position is that there 


is no vagueness. There is no reason to choose 


claimant favorable because just claimant 


favorable when you’re choosing between two 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

equally probable outcomes. And the data in 


front of us do not support two equally 


probable outcomes. 


The data in front of us support the 


Type S intake. Now we can provide, I think we 


can provide, we might be able to provide an 


additional explanation. Maybe we can explain 


some of these things. Maybe we could show 


some other hypothetical intakes that have been 


discussed here and why they don’t fit the data 


in hand. But --


MR. FARVER: Well, I think what Hans is 


getting at is if you would have showed in the 


dose report said we looked at M and this is 


what it was. We looked at S and this is what 


it was, and we chose S. But he’s not 


convinced that they would have looked at the 


other solubility class. And as a point I just 


made a note here. 


This is similar to a finding we have 


in our seventh set where it was a chest count 


and plutonium urine data, and they were trying 


to cap it with the americium on the chest 


count. And they chose Type S plutonium. And 


it was wrong. It’s not claimant favorable. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

They should have used the M. As you state 


here, M is more favorable when you limit it by 


the bound. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I’d have to see that case. 


MR. FARVER: Well, no, it’s just we’re going 


through the review right now. But I’m just 


saying that it can happen where they don’t 


necessarily choose the right one. 


 MS. BEHLING: And we’ve seen that. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I guess if it 


happened, but the case in front of us, that 


doesn’t seem to be the case. I mean, the dose 


reconstructors use IMBA, you know, they do 


multiple runs on IMBA if need be. I mean, it 


could be that a person is experienced with 


looking up the data and can look at a set of 


data and say that lung count can’t be there if 


this was a Type M or a Type S intake. 


I mean, if this was a Type S intake, 


that lung count would have to be much, much 


higher, and we’ll run the M. And that would 


be what they, it could be that they do that. 


But that would have to be somebody who’s 


really experienced with doing it. And I think 


for the most part they check to see which one 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

is most favorable. In fact, there are quite a 


number of dose reconstruction tools that do 


that automatically and check for the more --


 MS. BEHLING: I think one of the other 


points -- and correct me, Hans, if I’m wrong 


here -- but, I believe on this particular 


case, this individual is one that we actually 


thought should have been part of the high five 


group and wasn’t, based on the data that we 


looked at. 

MR. GRIFFON: Is that for the uranium 

though? 

 MS. BEHLING: I think that may have been for 

the uranium. Yes, I’m sorry, uranium. 


MR. SIEBERT: Well, I’m just thinking. 


Looking at what was selected in the initial 


assessment, knowing our process, it’s very 


obvious to me the person looked at different 


options and selected the one that fit the data 


the best. Didn’t just pick out, out of a hat, 


you know, a couple days beforehand. I believe 


that’s unlikely that you would not pick 


something like that right off the top of your 


head. You’d start at the midpoint and do 


comparisons. So I can just tell you most 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

likely this individual did that kind of 


comparison because that’s what we normally do. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, we can try and 


provide a more complete response and more 


complete explanation, but I haven’t heard 


anything yet that would cause me to question 


the way this was done. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): No, Stu, I 


fully concur with the bottom line that given 


the chest count in 1975 and the value that was 


recorded, the assumption of a Type S is 


probably not correct; and so therefore, the 


data supports what was done. The question, 


however, is was that necessarily done up front 


to justify, was this analysis done the way 


it’s presented to us now? 


And the question is are there cases 


were, or what would happen if the chest count 


hadn’t happened. It’s not contested right now 


based on the evidence that you’ve presented 


that the bottom line is a Type M should have 


been used, but my question is was that 


justified up front? And that’s really the 


central question. I’m not looking to change 


anything. I’m just asking the question. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

MR. HINNEFELD: See, I don’t know if we can 


answer that because if we went back to the 


dose reconstructor who did it, he won’t 


remember. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Of course not. 


MR. GRIFFON: And I can see that you would 


keep your final, I mean, I’m not even asking 


for every, because I know you go through 


drafts of different fitting, and I can see 


that in the final file that you submit for the 


O drive or whatever that you would have your 


last run, your final run. But I sort of see 


this lung thing as a separate; it’s kind of a 


supporting run. 


Here’s our urinalysis run projecting 


our intakes, and, oh, by the way, this is why, 


you know, this probably looks a little odd. I 


would have included another, at least an 


explanation of our run with the lung data to 


show this is why we didn’t select S because it 


just doesn’t make sense with our other urine 


data. I don’t know. We’re not going to be 


able to answer that because it wasn’t there. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Right, I hate to get into 


committing restoring and putting in the case 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

record. I mean, what you guys see is the case 


record, and any, you know, it’s like putting 


the scratchings on the page before you write 


your paper and putting that in the folder with 


your official report. I mean, any preliminary 


work you do then is rejected because it 


doesn’t match the facts of the case. I hate 


to get into committing to collecting all that 


and putting it in the official record of the 


case. 


MR. GRIFFON: I’m not saying that though. 


I’m saying that the case that you provided 


here showing, you know, here’s your lung count 


and here would have been your projected. And 


that’s why that scenario didn’t make sense to 


use Type S. That’s a supporting document --


MR. HINNEFELD: I’ll go, I guess I can see ­

-


MR. GRIFFON: -- for what otherwise looks 


like an unusual sort of parameters, you know? 


That’s what I would say. But anyway, we’re 


not going to be able to do much more with that 


one I don’t think at this point. 


I’m going to go to 67.11 if that’s 


okay because I don’t know whether we’re going 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

to answer that question now, and I think we 


agree with the bottom line. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, and I think we’ve 


partially discussed already 67.11 which 


indicates the selection dates for the acute 


uranium intakes not procedurally compliant or 


claimant favorable and the fact that they 


took, they used these as acute dates, acute 


intakes, and they took one, two, three days 


prior to the urinalysis when, as your 


procedures state, you want to use the midpoint 


between the last bioassay. 


MR. GRIFFON: So this is for the 67.11, the 


uranium projections and --


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, the uranium. As I 


indicated, I think this individual should have 


been one of the high five individuals. 


MR. GRIFFON: I guess I wanted to know, I 


mean, I’m looking at your detailed response, 


and in there I think you say that the initial 


intake in the SC&A scenario that dominates the 


entire ^ intake of uranium of 74,131 


nanocuries, 0.7 grams based on an assumption 


of highly enriched uranium. This is over 400 


times larger than the largest reported volume 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

given in TIB-001. Therefore, you’re saying 


it’s unreasonable. 


I mean, I guess that’s your point, 


Kathy, is maybe it should have been in TIB001, right? That maybe it should have been 


one of the high five values. I’m reading from 


your -- everybody know where I’m at? I don’t 


know if everybody has this document, but it’s 


titled “ORAUT Response 67.9 and 67.11”. It 


was a document provided in support of the 


matrix. 


 MS. BEHLING: Stu had sent this out on a CD. 


MR. GRIFFON: So do you see? I mean, are 


you saying that that is unlikely because if 


you had an intake that large, they would have 


caught it and it written up as an incident or 


is it just unlikely from a physical 


standpoint? I’m not sure. 


MR. SIEBERT: I believe what we’re point out 


is this is a highly unlikely scenario based on 


what we know from OTIB-001, the highest fives 


for, say, uranium in that an intake like this 


would occur unnoticed. And yet, we are still 


assigning it to the individual to be claimant 


favorable when we run into intakes that are 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

that large. 


MR. GRIFFON: If I can go down, and this is 


just because it’s been awhile since I looked 


at this case, but at the bottom you say the 


final dose to the colon from this scenario is 


3.5 rem. Is this dose different than what was 


in your initial assessment? This is on the 


very last page, the very bottom. 


MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, I see what you’re 


referring to. I probably should have compared 


it to what was originally assigned. 


MR. GRIFFON: And then another question is 


we note that after September 21st, 1956, 


there’s a drop off in these urine samples. 


And I wondered again did anyone look at this 


person’s work and understand and was there a 


physical reason why all of a sudden there was, 


these uranium excretions were dropping, you 


know, were much lower? Did he switch jobs 


during that timeframe somewhere? 


MR. SIEBERT: Well, the generic answer for 


that is we use the information that we have. 


And, I mean, you guys know from looking at the 


records, we generally have very little actual 


employment information as to where the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

individual is working other than what’s 


attached to the bioassay results. That’s, the 


bioassay badging and the CATI are really the 


major things that we have to determine where 


the individual was. 


MR. GRIFFON: And we do have the CATI. 


MR. SIEBERT: And we do have a CATI, but if 


I remember right, you’re correct. It was from 


survivors. 


MR. GRIFFON: But I think, I don’t know 


about Savannah River. You don’t have employee 


cards? I forget. 


MR. SIEBERT: Generally, there’s not a whole 


heck of a lot of information. The majority of 


it comes from the bioassay cards with areas 


that they’re working from when they collected 


the bioassay. 


 MS. BEHLING: Actually, I think in this 


particular case the energy employee is the 


claimant. At least based on what I have 


written up under our CATI report. It seemed 


to me it was not a survivor. It was actually 


a worker that provided the CATI information 


because it ^. 


MR. GRIFFON: Well, I think that’s 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

important, but first question first, that 3.54 


rem. I guess what I’m getting at here is when 


you did your reassessment here did you 


actually end up modifying the uranium dose? 


MR. SIEBERT: I’m looking at the original 


assessment here real quick. I’m sorry. 


MR. GRIFFON: That’s fine. 


MR. SIEBERT: The original assessment 


assigned 4.077 for uranium so it actually 


would have gone down. 


MR. GRIFFON: That’s what I thought this 

might be. 

MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, I apologize. In the 

response I probably should have mentioned 


that. 


MR. GRIFFON: Hans, do you have anything on 


this? 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes, I’m 


looking at the response, and I’m somewhat 


perplexed as to what it all means. The 


original finding was centered pretty much 


around the fact that you had all these routine 


bioassays. And if you look at Table 3 in our 


dose reconstruction audit, you will see the 


exact dates, and then you also see the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52 

previous urinalysis prior to those ones. And 


then you see the time lapse between the two 


successive bioassays for which the procedures 


would normally expect you to take the 


midpoint. 


And as it turned out, we’re talking 


about in this case usually one or two days 


beforehand as the day of intake. And that was 


really the thing that jumped out at me is that 


what are the procedural assumptions that are 


applied here that draw, that allow a dose 


reconstructor to come to a conclusion, oh yes, 


we have eight spikes in our bioassays, bingo, 


they all have to be an acute intake. 


And second, the intake is two or three 


days before the bioassay, when, in fact, the 


bioassay is routine. And none of that 


obviously has any sense of logic attached to 


it. 


MR. SIEBERT: Well, and you see in the 


response that when I rework this for the 


response to get this 3.5 rem calculation, I 


did run it as a couple different chronics to 


handle the time periods. And go back to 


assuming midpoint. I want to be sure we’re 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53 

finishing the thought process in the 


procedure. The procedure says to assume the 


midpoint as long as it’s not inconsistent with 


other data that you have. And in this 


scenario, it’s clearly inconsistent with later 


data. It would have over-predicted the rest 


of the data horrendously. So it would have 


been inconsistent. 


So what the dose reconstructor was 


doing was trying to find a scenario that was 


consistent with all the uranium data, not just 


taking the midpoint and just assuming that and 


moving on. If it had been a non-compensable 


case with those assumptions, they probably 


would have left it that way would be my guess. 


I assume that would be the first thing they 


tried and would have left it that way if it 


was non-compensable because if it over-


predicts, that’s okay. 


As you know, we were in the realm 


where we needed to get a better estimate so 


they were doing work to try to fit the data. 


And I agree that a couple days beforehand 


consistently is not necessarily the most 


appropriate way to go in all cases. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

And that’s why when I re-worked this 


and looked at it, did the chronic scenarios 


which once you start talking long-term 


excretion, you notice the doses were virtually 


identical. So there may be better ways to fit 


it; however, that’s what the dose 


reconstructor was trying to do. 


MR. FARVER: I think you start with the 


midpoint for procedure, and then it’s pretty 


much left up to the dose reconstructor to do 


a, basically a visual best fit. Is that how 


it works, Scott? 


MR. SIEBERT: Generally, yes. 


MR. FARVER: Right. So you could give Scott 


and I and Liz the same case to work, we’re 


going to come up with three different 


scenarios, but probably the doses will be 


about the same. 


MR. SIEBERT: Correct, generally speaking. 


MR. FARVER: But it is based on professional 


judgment and a visual fit. 


MR. SIEBERT: Right, and as we know with 


internal dosimetry, within a factor of two is 


pretty darn good. So in looking at these two, 


you know, four rem in the initial and then 3.5 

1 -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55 

MR. FARVER: I think Hans is concerned about 


how you chose those acute intake dates. And I 


think the answer is professional judgment. 


MR. SIEBERT: Correct. 


MR. GRIFFON: I guess my question would be 


more to ask why. Why did you choose acute 


intakes? 

 MS. BEHLING: That’s what I was just going 

to ask. 

MR. GRIFFON: I mean, it seems to me like I 

would, I don’t have much information on ^ at 


all. You say that right in your response. 


And yet the dose reconstructor assigns acute 


one day before routine bioassays. It makes no 


sense to me. Why not assign a chronic to the 


whole thing like you always do? I mean, 


almost all the time you do that. What was the 


point of that? 


 MS. BEHLING: The other question I think 


that Hans is trying to point out is that when 


we looked at these bioassay records, I think 


they were marked as routine, not as a special 


or they were all routine. So we think the 


questions that we asked were legitimate. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56 

DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): And then also 


let me add something with regard to the fact 


that when you re-worked it, you would have, 


that it would have over-predicted. But 


wouldn’t that also heavily depend on the 


assumption regarding solubility? Did you test 


different solubilities to determine whether or 


not the over-prediction holds true for a Type 


F or M? 


MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, when I reworked this –-


and bear with me. I’m thinking back five 


months when I did this for you guys. The 


original assessment did use Type S because of 


the type of work –- and this is where we do 


tie back to where he was working –- the work 


the individual was doing if I remember 


correctly. 


And Kathy was correct. It was the 


actual employee who did the CATI which is 


where we got this information. The individual 


said they were working inspecting uranium 


slugs and weighing and autoclaving uranium. 


Well, that’s insoluble work. Generally, 


you’re not dealing with Type F uranium at that 


point, most likely Type S, maybe Type M. So 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57 

that was factored into the assumptions in the 


original assessment. 


When I reworked it, I did look at a 


variety of different solubility types. And 


because of the type of cancer we’re talking 


about, Type S actually did turn out to be the 


most claimant favorable assumption from a 


dosimetric point of view as well. 


MR. GRIFFON: But, and that’s, I’d have to 


re-look at this, too, but I mean, what struck 


me was that drop off in ’56, after ’56. The 


data looks very different before ’56 and after 


’56. And did they do different work --


MR. SIEBERT: Actually, that’s --


MR. GRIFFON: -- were they working with 


different types of uranium --


MR. SIEBERT: That is, when I look at the 


data, that’s more of an issue with the type of 


analysis that was being done as opposed to the 


type of work the individual was doing. They 


could only detect up to such and such an 


amount in the earlier years. Obviously, in 


later years detection limits were much lower. 


And if I remember correctly, too, the 


initial, the early years are all based on mass 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58 

base measurements, and we made a claimant 


favorable assumption as to what material the 


individual was working with which gave you a 


much larger number from an activity point of 


view which would also give you larger numbers 


in the early years. And then once you go to a 


mass-based detection –- or activity-based 


system it’s much lower. 


MR. GRIFFON: Did you look at any solubility 


mixtures, I mean we’re talking about S or M. 


Did you look at, you know, 50-50 or mixes like 


that? 


MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, we –- Liz, do you want 


to handle that one specifically? Would you 


mind? 


MS. BRACKETT: Well, a few comments. I got 


quite a lecture from the authors of IMBA that 


that is not appropriate to do mixtures. That 


instead --


MR. GRIFFON: Is that because IMBA doesn’t 


handle it very well? 


MS. BRACKETT: No, no. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, because I noticed that, 


too. 


MS. BRACKETT: You’re right. It is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

59 

difficult to do them to do actual mixtures. 


Well, you can’t put in any specific mixture. 


You can put in two different types and have it 


do the mixture for you, but their opinion is 


that ICRP-66 was designed specifically so that 


you could adjust the parameter value of the 


lung model itself and come up with what’s 


appropriate by adjusting those rather than 


mixing types. That it basically amounts to 


the same thing. But the intent of the model 


was to be able to do the adjustment. 


MR. GRIFFON: So my question stands then. 


No matter what you want to call it, did you 


adjust the parameters? 


MS. BRACKETT: Right, but then, okay, but to 


adjust parameters you need to have a lot of 


data. You need to be able to have enough data 


on which to make a basis for actually changing 


the parameters, and that’s why we compare the 


different material types to come up with 


whatever is more claimant-favorable rather 


than trying to mix things. 


Because I think if you try this you’ll 


see that in a lot of cases different mixtures, 


the fit is not very different because we did 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

60 

this when we did the Mound dose 


reconstruction. And people started doing like 


really wild mixtures that had no basis in 


anything because it doesn’t really matter. It 


doesn’t really change the fit. 


And so that’s why we pretty much go 


with 100 percent of each of them and then 


compare them. Because I don’t really think 


that it would change your answer if you 


started doing mixtures as far as being 


claimant favorable. We still need to use the 


most claimant favorable, and I think that 


would end up being 100 percent of something. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Mark, can I 


just wrap it up because of a couple comments 


that both Doug and Liz made, and I think 


here’s the issue. From what Liz was saying 


and Doug had prompted that response is that 


there is an awful lot of professional 


subjective opinion that goes into dose 


reconstruction. That’s statement one. 


The second that obviously these dose 


reconstructions have a tremendous amount of 


uncertainty when we talk about internal 


dosimetry. And Liz made a comment if your 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61 

factor of two is a range between multiple 


people doing this then you’re probably within 


the area of reality. And yet when you deal 


with best estimate, and this guy had a 48.16 


percent POC, and his internal dose was seven 


rem. And I can assure you that if you doubled 


that seven rem as a bounding value using the 


current one as a lower limit value, then he 


would have been compensated. 


And that’s something of a disturbing 


factor when you’re that close to the breaking 


point, the uncertainty associated with 


internal dosimetry and the subjective nature 


of a dose reconstructor being able to apply 


his opinion or his interpretation is somewhat 


disturbing. In a sense where when you’re that 


close it should be somewhat very prescriptive 


so that we don’t have, oh, you were denied 


because you had dose reconstructor X, and you 


got compensated with the same set of data 


because you had dose reconstructor Y. 


I think that has been a problem with 


us all along. It’s when you get this close, 


it should be very prescriptive and the room 


for subjective interpretation should be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

extremely minimal. And I think this whole 


thing brought it out with this issue of making 


a selection that says it’s my opinion that for 


eight acute exposures, which first of all are 


questionable in defining them as acute 


exposures, that the day of intake was one or 


two days beforehand. 


I think to me that’s a very, very 


subjective opinion, and why can you justify it 


and say, well, that’s our professional 


opinion? It’s questionable if you had ten 


people doing the same thing whether they would 


have ended up doing the same thing in each 


case. 


MS. BRACKETT: Well, I’d like to point out 


that Scott re-did this, and he used different 


assumptions. And he did chronic intakes. And 


my understanding is that he didn’t get 


anything significantly different or larger. 


And, I mean, this is not something 


that we can change. This is internal 


dosimetry. There have been studies done where 


cases have been sent to internal dosimetrists 


around the world to do comparisons of what the 


outcomes were. And there is this difference 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63 

because it is subjective. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): I realize that. 


I realize that, Liz, and I’m not chiding 


anyone for it. But as I said, in this case 


when there’s a Procedure Three that says use 


the midpoint, and someone elects not to 


because of some other factor or decision, it’s 


obviously a situation where we have a 


potential for a person whose claim is being 


evaluated, the luck of the draw determines 


whether you’re going to be under, just under 


or just over the 50 percent. 


And I guess this is the point that I 


wanted to make here is the luck of the draw 


being a potential deciding factor that in 


instances of best estimates of dose 


reconstruction is one that I would try to 


minimize by being a little more prescriptive 


and perhaps claimant favorably prescriptive in 


doing a dose reconstruction. 


MS. BRACKETT: Well, I would point out that 


that’s why we have the peer review process. 


And then OCAS again reviews. So I agree that 


it is subjective, but there are many reviews 


done to try to eliminate any bias that there 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

might be on anybody’s part. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): And you’ll see 


in the next particular claim that we’re going 


to be reviewing where there was some very 


different assumptions were made for dose 


reconstruction that could have gone, or could 


have been interpreted in a different way. So 


we will see shortly that there is a subjective 


element to dose reconstruction that may in 


some instances make a significant difference 


in terms of compensability. 


MR. GRIFFON: It’s actually good, Liz, that 


you brought that up, the peer review aspect. 


I mean, it strikes me again that to model this 


as seven acute intakes one day before, I’m 


surprised that someone didn’t do what Scott 


just presented to us in the peer review 


process. But that didn’t come up. You know, 


why not model this as a chronic? How do you 


support modeling this as seven acutes or 


whatever, however many acute intakes? But 


anyway, I don’t know that we can discuss it 


much more. 


MS. BRACKETT: I do agree, and I think we’ve 


had the same discussion before because I’ve 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65 

given training to the dose reconstructors. 


And I beat them over the head to tell them not 


to do this, that it’s not a likely scenario, 


that every intake happened to be one day 


before a routine sample. 


MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah, I’m not, that’s 

fine. 

MS. BEHLING: One last thing. I was also 

going to bring up the QA issue in light of 


this discussion. And based on the cases that 


we’ve seen, we very often see a peer review 


signed off the very next day. So, and I 


realize you have a lot of cases that you have 


to get through, but for these best estimate 


cases, and especially something that’s this 


close, I don’t have that particular dose 


reconstruction in front of me, but very often 


we see one day it’s completed, and the next 


day the peer review is signed off. And it may 


be two to three days later and NIOSH signs 


off. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I think my bottom line 


anyway if Hans and Kathy agree with me is that 


I don’t think there’s any more outstanding 


action for NIOSH on these two items. We’ve 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

got enough certainly to understand your 


answers. So I think we’ll close them at that 


point. 


And what I’m going to ask for at this 


point is just can we take five, take a five 


minute comfort break. We’re just going to 


mute you for about five minutes. I’m going to 


try to keep it brief, but a five minute 


comfort break. 


(Whereupon, a break was taken from 10:20 


a.m. until 10:30 a.m.) 


MR. GRIFFON: I think we’re ready to start 


up again. Is everybody, SC&A on the line? 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes, I’m here. 


MR. PRESLEY: I’m here. 


MR. GRIFFON: We’re moving on to case 68, 


68.1, and I’m going to turn it over to Kathy 


for 68. There’s a number on this small matrix 


that Stu sent out. This is one of the ones we 


requested more work on, right, case 68? 


MS. BEHLING: Right, and the finding is 


inappropriate method used for assessing missed 


photon dose. I actually have to go back and 


look at the findings. Focusing on the 


internal on this one. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67 

MR. HINNEFELD: I guess this is an LOD2 


issue, isn’t it? 


MS. BEHLING: LOD over two is it? 


MR. HINNEFELD: LOD-2. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, and that issue, what 


that issue had to do with is the fact that 


NIOSH was not assigning values that are LOD 


over two, anything less than LOD over two, as 


a missed dose. And this again is something 


that has now been incorporated into I believe 


the workbooks as of about September of last 


year I believe. It’s now being incorporated 


into the workbooks so this is an issue that I 


believe NIOSH has taken care of. I guess --


MR. GRIFFON: Did this result in a change in 


this particular case? Did you reassess this 


particular case for this? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


MR. GRIFFON: Because I think this is 


another one that’s pretty close to the --


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, this change is 


marginally when you get down to the outcome of 


doing this because you subtract –- what 


happened was there was a positive reading of 


LOD is, say, 30, LOD over two is 15, so you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

have a result that’s somewhere between zero 


and 15 that’s in there in the measured dose 


and instead you’re going to substitute a 15 


with an LOD of two in the missed dose. So 


that the change is almost inconsequential. 


MS. BEHLING: Although, although I always 


point this out. I bring this up because we do 


have cases where we’re looking at people 


having 40 years of employment starting back 


sometimes in the late ‘40s or early ‘50s when 


the badge exchanges were weekly or 26 weeks, 


and the LOD is --


MR. GRIFFON: That’s why I asked, yeah. 

MS. BEHLING: -- 40 millirem at that point. 

So it can --

MR. HINNEFELD: In how many of those 


exchanges though do you have recorded results 


that is less than LOD over two? 


MR. GRIFFON: True, true. 


MS. BEHLING: True, but it’s --


MR. HINNEFELD: To me this is a fairly 


marginal change. I mean, we can, there are 


other things that are going on on this case 


that it’s going to be, the case is going to be 


looked at again. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

MS. BEHLING: Agreed. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And when it is, it would be 


able to, LOD over two would be treated 


appropriately. 


MR. GRIFFON: Treated appropriately, that’s 


the answer that we need. Okay. 


Sixty-eight point two, Stu, I think 


two and three, you are saying you still --


MR. HINNEFELD: These are pretty generic, 


broad ranging findings. They may be written 


elsewhere as well. And as I understand them 


it has to do with, well, two is, anyway. Two 


is the one that has to do with, this is kind 


of a broad issue is the reading of the badge 


the best number to use? 


MS. BEHLING: Right, and your response of 


the dosimeter. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that’s essentially the 


question because we use the reading on the 


badge as the most representative of what the 


person was exposed to. And the finding is, is 


that the best thing to use. So we have some 


response on that. 


MR. GRIFFON: Have those been captured, it 


seems to me that was brought up in our first 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

set of reviews, the first 20 cases or 


something. Have those been captured as 


generic action items somewhere along the line? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I believe so. I 


believe so. 


MR. GRIFFON: This is just a generic --


MR. HINNEFELD: It’s a generic question, 


yeah --


MR. GRIFFON: -- question to make sure we 


don’t lose these. 


The same for the second one, the iso 


for the --


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, outside of ambient. I 


would say we provide a basis for using. We 


think isotropic DCFs are correct for the 


ambient exposure environment. 


MS. BEHLING: And we agree with that. After 


that I was going to say we did agree with 


that. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so I think that one’s 


okay, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: That one’s okay. 


MR. GRIFFON: So 68.3’s okay. 68.2 is going 


to be a generic, a broader response, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

MR. GRIFFON: Instead of NIOSH re-evaluating 


this case for 68.2, I’m going to say NIOSH is 


developing a general response to this issue, 


right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


MR. GRIFFON: All right, 68.3 is, we’re in 


agreement on that, right? 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. 

MR. GRIFFON: Sixty-eight point four, so 

this is --

MS. BEHLING: Yeah, this is an internal. In 

fact, I’ll let Hans take this. This one is, 


Hans’ response was plutonium internal dose 


calculation and assumptions excessively 


complex without scientific basis and 


potentially not claimant favorable. And I 


think he was –- you can elaborate, Hans -– but 


I think he was indicating here that rather 


than assuming an MDA over the entire 


timeframe, they broke this exposure up into 


discontinuous --


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yeah, Kathy, 


let me just summarize it and not dwell on it 


too much. The point here was this. As 


auditors you’re expected to obviously follow 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72 

the breadcrumbs into a cave and hopefully you 


find where the breadcrumbs lead you to and 


determine whether or not that’s correct. And 


I have to say based on our attempt, and I 


think we did identify exactly what was done, 


but it brought me back to one of the issues 


that we wrote into the protocol for assessing 


or auditing dose reconstructions. 


And that is based on regulatory 


guidance that state that there must be a 


balance between efficiency and precision in 


doing dose reconstruction. And quite frankly, 


to be humorous or cynical, if Rube Goldberg 


had been a health physicist, this is how he 


would have done it. There’s much more detail 


in here than certainly can be justified or it 


needs to be. And having said that, I think 


that’s as much as I want to say. 


As I said, using different methods 


here you would have ended up with questionable 


differences of a few millirem that one would 


have been extremely straightforward, simpler, 


understandable as opposed to the program that 


was introduced here which was really entering 


a black hole with blindfolders on. You just 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73 

didn’t really have an understanding of what 


was going on. 


And as far as I was concerned, there 


was just no justification for doing so. But 


aside from that there’s nothing that needs to 


be changed here other than a complexity that 


at this point cannot be justified. 


MR. HINNEFELD: In our response we pretty 


much agreed with that. That it didn’t have to 


be as complex as it was. We provided a more 


simplified analysis that gives essentially the 


same or very similar results. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): I think we can 


go to 68.5 or whatever --


MR. GRIFFON: I was just pulling open the 


response document which is six pages which I 


don’t think I’ve looked at in awhile, so --


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yeah, NIOSH in 


the second paragraph states, NIOSH agrees that 


the original assessments were more complex 


than the claim required and will show that ^ 


simplification has been assessed. And as I 


said I did the same thing. We end up with the 


same numbers. The differences are so trivial 


as to be inconsequential, and I think I’ve 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74 

made the statement. 


MR. GRIFFON: This question, and it came up 


in the last case, too, this assumption of 12 


percent Plutonium-240 mixture aged ten years, 


^ growth, is that just, we got that from 


Savannah River. Is that pretty standard or 


are there exceptions to that? Was there other 


less aged material that they dealt with? 


MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, we have numbers for 


fresh, five year aged and ten year aged, and 


generically speaking, the ten year aged, since 


you have aging is more claimant favorable 


because you have more americium. 


MR. GRIFFON: In the last scenario if you 


have more americium, your detection limits for 


the lung are probably lower. 


MR. SIEBERT: For your chest count actually 


can combine. So generally speaking for the 


first five years of the site that they had 


plutonium on it, we’ll normally assume fresh 


because obviously it hadn’t aged yet. And the 


next five years we’ll assume the five year age 


and then ten from that point on. 


MR. GRIFFON: In that case 67 he was, he 


worked in the early ‘50s, didn’t he? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 -- 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75 

MR. SIEBERT: Uh-huh. 

MR. GRIFFON: But you assume ten year aged. 

MR. SIEBERT: I’d have to look at it. 

MR. GRIFFON: I mean, I’m going, well, I’m 

sorry --

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the lung count was 


taken in ’75 --


MR. GRIFFON: Oh, so the lung count was ’75 


MR. HINNEFELD: It was way late, and so when 


it was ingested, it could have been ingested 


fresh; it would have been aged by the time of 


the lung count. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that’s true. That’s 


true. 


Okay, I’m not that up to speed with 68 


so unless Hans or Kathy have anything else 


I’ll defer to you guys. 


MS. BEHLING: Sixty-eight point five, 


uranium internal dose calculation assumptions 


in the air are not claimant favorable. Hans 


and I spent quite a bit of time going through 


your explanation of this and after reviewing 


everything and realizing as you said this 


enriched uranium was activity based, it was in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76 

DPM, we agree with your response. We agree 


with questioning the use of the depleted 


uranium and whether that was an appropriate 


assumption. But after reviewing your 


response, we understand why you did that, and 


we agree. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yeah, let me 


just add something, Kathy. The issue is 


really one of, our concern was the issue of 


using depleted uranium as a default assumption 


for the F area. And it is really only for 


the, even though the majority of the bioassays 


involve the depleted uranium assumption, which 


is defined in terms of micrograms per 1.5 


liter, it is, in essence, also a relatively 


short period of time in contrast to the number 


of assays taken. 


And that’s the only issue that needs 


to be looked at because the assumption was 


that it’s depleted uranium, and the second 


assumption was that it is U-238 as opposed to 


the normal assumption of U-234. But the 


difference is marginal in terms of the energy 


of the alpha and therefore the DCF. 


And the other values that were 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77 

assigned, again, the assumption was, I think 


according to the statement, was assumed to be 


depleted uranium, but it really doesn’t matter 


because all of the other values were defined 


in DPM per unit volume of urine in which case 


it doesn’t matter whether it’s U-238, 235, 234 


because they all have comparable energy values 


for their alpha and their effective half-life 


in the body is essentially identical. 


So it really doesn’t matter with the 


exception that as I said for that very brief 


period of time where the, for the period of 


time when enriched uranium was, in fact, the 


assumed mixture of uranium in which case, U234 would have been the dominant radionuclide, 


and therefore, because it has a slightly 


higher alpha energy it has also a higher DCF 


value. But I think you’ve corrected that so 


we have no further comment. 


MS. BEHLING: And I believe the next issue, 


68.6, was the tritium internal dose 


methodology, is excessively complex and not 


proceduralized. However, since this, 


reviewing this particular case which was back 


on the fourth set, we did review OTIB-011. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78 

There’s also a very nice workbook 


that’s been developed for the tritium that 


allows, I assume there are data processors 


that put this data in up front and it allows 


the dose reconstructor to look it over and 


automatically do a missed included dose for 


the tritium. That’s a very nice tool for them 


to use. So this, we agree, we can eliminate 


this. This is not something that is an issue 


any longer. 


Okay, I guess --


MR. GRIFFON: Point seven is the fission 

product. 

MS. BEHLING: Point seven is the fission 

product, and --

MR. GRIFFON: And we already talked about 

that. 

MS. BEHLING: Okay, and I guess you’re 

working on --

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the Procedures group 


got the first set of technical information to 


support the fission product internal 


dosimetry. And once that date, the second 


step of that will be, okay, for these Savannah 


River cases then is it consistent with or 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79 

bounded or do they bound that approach because 


the current approach is a little more robust, 


a little more technically developed than what 


we’ve done. 


So the question becomes if, in fact, 


what we’re doing now is technically valid we 


then need to compare what was done in these 


early –- these are fairly early Savannah River 


cases to ensure that this is valid in terms of 


what we’re doing. So we don’t want to lose 


these completely, and just because the 


Procedures group says, okay, if they say okay, 


what’s being done on it, on mixed fission 


products, is it valid. 


We still need to take that response 


back, and we can do it in the Procedures 


group. We can make, you know, because you and 


I will both be there. Many of us will 


probably be there, so we can make sure that we 


don’t, you know, that we bring that back and 


address these at that same time in the 


Procedures group. 


MR. GRIFFON: Sure. 


MS. BEHLING: But is it my understanding 


that you’re also developing a workbook to take 

1 

2 -- 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80 

care of this fission product issue? I thought 


MR. SIEBERT: Yes, there’s a tool being 


created for OTIB-0054. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

MR. SIEBERT: I’m actually testing it. 

MS. BEHLING: Sixty-eight point eight is 

failure to properly address radiological 


incident, and I believe on your reassessment 


you agreed with that, and you did reassess 


some dose for this particular individual based 


on that incident. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We’ve got the 68.8 results 


here. There should be a written response in 


the Word file. 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. I know you reassessed --


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, there’s a written 


response. 


MS. BEHLING: I believe you calculated an 


additional 500 millirem to the red bone marrow 


and 130 millirem to the prostate based on this 


radiological incident assuming that it was 


airborne uranium in the C Canyon. 


MR. GRIFFON: Can you tell us where the ^ 


the incident was --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it was described in 


the CATI, and it was addressed in the original 


dose reconstruction. So in our response we 


went and researched it. If anybody’s 


interested, ^ in front of me. He claimed he 


was involved in a failed fuel event in C 


Canyon, or a failed tube. He said he may have 


been exposed to airborne uranium. And so it 


was modeled as an acute intake at that time 


until his next bioassay. 


He wasn’t being monitored in 1966, but 


his bioassay resumed in 1971. So the next 


bioassay in 1971, which, I don’t know if it 


was less than ^ but whatever the result was, 


so what acute intake do you get back in 1966 


that gives you that result in 1971. That was 


the intake that was modeled, and then we have 


a dose outcome. It does add dose to the claim 


but doesn’t affect the outcome. 


MS. BEHLING: And I believe the last one was 


68.9, and again, this is a CATI. 


MR. GRIFFON: Can I ask one other thing on 


the incidence? I mean, he noted an incident 


in the CATI, and you followed up on it. Did, 


at the same time is there any resource where 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

you could have checked to see if he was in any 


other incidents or is there any kind of 


incident database at Savannah River that --


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there’s a database at 


Savannah River that includes an incident, but 


I would not call it an incident database or a 


complete incident database. You’re familiar 


with that one. You’ve read that one. No, 


there’s not a place to go look up Joe Smith 


and say, okay, here are all the incidents he 


was in. Many sites will provide incident 


information in the exposure record, not all, 


I’d guess, maybe they all do, but we’ve seen 


them at a number of sites, we’ve seen an 


incident report exposure record but not 


always. So I don’t know of any other way to 


look further. Now, I do kind of want to say 


though since this, I believe, was a fairly old 


claim. It was done a number of years ago. We 


have, for a number of years, the Advisory 


Board and we have been working to make sure, 


based on feedback ^ the Advisory Board, we’ve 


been trying to make sure that the descriptions 


in the CATI are addressed in the dose 


reconstruction. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83 

Even if it doesn’t add any dose to the 


dose reconstruction, we want to make sure that 


we read, the claimant understands, we’ve 


listened to the CATI, we took the information 


you provided to us in the CATI, and we 


incorporated it into the dose reconstruction. 


So we’ve been making a more concerted attempt 


to do that. But this was a fairly old claim. 


It may have been before we had really tried to 


focus on it. 


MS. BEHLING: We’re occasionally seeing that 


in some of the dose reconstruction reports, 


but can I assume that when you go to the DOE 


for the information, do you automatically ask 


for radiological incidents along with the 


dosimetry files, and --


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we ask for internal 


and external exposure information, and so I 


don’t -- I’m trying to think what the form 


says. There’s a form that we send in. 


MS. BEHLING: There’s a form. I know that 


that’s an element on the form. I just don’t 


know if it’s always asked for just like your 


X-ray information. You don’t always --


MR. HINNEFELD: Incident’s a block on there. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84 

MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


MR. SIEBERT: You know, at Savannah River I 


know we do get incident information when it’s 


available because I’ve seen it in the records 


and also on the bioassay cards as you probably 


know. Down at the bottom they have the 


remarks section and for those that were in 


response to an incident, they normally mark 


that it’s incident related. So we are 


getting, I believe, the information that they 


have. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay. Because as you know we 


often see these CATI reports are filled out by 


survivors, and they typically do not know. 


MR. PRESLEY: A lot of the incident reports 


would be in the medical records, too. 


MR. HINNEFELD: If they went to the 


Dispensary, there would be things there. 


Well, we ask for, the form that we send to the 


DOE sites asks for incidents. 


MR. FARVER: Is there anything in the peer 


review process that prompts the reviewer to 


compare the CATI to the dose reconstruction 


report? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I know in the OCAS 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85 

review, it’s part of the OCAS review to read 


the CATI to make sure that the CATI is 


consistent with the dose reconstruction. 


MR. SIEBERT: It’s our practice as well. We 


can always check the peer review procedure. 


MR. FARVER: That’s what I’m looking at, and 


I don’t see it in the checklist anywhere. So 


that would be a good place to ^ to check for 


incidents. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, I guess as I said 68.9 


is another CATI information. Apparently this, 


I assume it was the EE who, the energy 


employee, who completed this CATI report, and 


he marked on here that he was exposed to 


natural and enriched uranium. And I think 


this actually was discussed under our finding 


68.5, and you did identify the fact that the 


bioassay data does show that. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Kathy, let me 


just add something to that. Specifically, the 


issue, I assume we’re talking about finding 


68.9, Kathy? 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): It goes back to 


the issue of trying to identify what specific 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

activity is to be assigned when the 


photofluorometric urinalysis was used that is 


defined in terms of micrograms for 1.5 liter. 


And it’s very imperative to understand what 


your radioisotopic mixture is because if you 


use depleted uranium, I believe the value that 


was used there is to use a specific activity 


of 0.372 picocuries per microgram. And, of 


course, that’s the lowest possible value that 


you can assign in terms of specific activity. 


I believe for the enriched uranium at 


Savannah River it’s probably an enrichment 


somewhere between 3.5 and 4.0 percent meaning 


that the specific activity would go from 0.372 


to something close to 2.3 picocuries or 


something close to a seven-fold higher value. 


And it’s just of question of whether or not 


during the period when photofluorometric 


bioassays were used where the activity is not 


really measured but only defined in micrograms 


per unit volume what was the proper assignment 


of the activity for that period. 


And as I said it would involve those 


periods, and I think they’re defined in the 


table that NIOSH provided us with where you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87 

have certain periods of time where bioassays 


were defined by photofluorometric method as 


opposed to obviously DPM per unit volume of 


alpha activity. And that’s what that issue is 


about. 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


MR. GRIFFON: Well, the only question, and 


the only reason I was harping on this incident 


question a little bit was sort of reflecting 


back on the last case as well, I mean, here’s 


a case where this individual, I guess in his 


CATI he said that he was involved in this 


incident, right? You found that this incident 


did, in fact, occur? I mean --


MR. HINNEFELD: No. 


MR. GRIFFON: No, you didn’t or --


MR. SIEBERT: I think we just took it --


MR. GRIFFON: Oh, you just took it, his 


word. 


MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, there was no one-on-one 


correspondence where we actually --


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so you didn’t find an 


incident write up or anything. Because I was 


curious why there was no bioassay right after 


the incident. He got a fairly significant 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88 

intake, not a huge intake but there was no 


incident later. That answers my question. 


MS. BEHLING: We can go on to 69, 69.1. 


That’s taken care of. Sixty-nine point two, 


this a finding that we have identified 


numerous times. It’s failure to account for 


recorded photon dose uncertainty. 


And in this particular case NIOSH 


spent quite a bit of time responding to this 


issue and indicating that when they assume a 


DCF of one, and looking at the dosimetry data 


they did a calculation for us that they would 


put low doses and high doses and looked at 


various cancers. I don’t know if everyone has 


their write up, but they did look at various 


cancers such as bladder, red bone marrow, 


colon, esophagus and so on. 


The only thing that I found 


interesting here is I first picked this up to 


read it in association with Case 71 which 


happens to be a thyroid cancer. And in that 


case your main thyroid dose, in the case of 


all of the examples that you’ve used here, 


your main DCF value for these particular 


cancers is always less than one. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89 

So the assumption of using one in 


comparison to doing a Monte Carlo technique 


and using a triangular distribution, you still 


are going to be higher than using that Monte 


Carlo. However, for a thyroid cancer I’m not 


necessarily sure that that’s the case because 


the thyroid cancer, your DCF, your mean DCF, 


is 1.017. 


MR. HINNEFELD: It’s greater than one. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, it’s greater than one, 


but it was just interesting to me that your 


table selected all cancers that would be 


midpoint of the DCF is definitely less than 


one. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that’s where it’s 


supposed to be used. So the use of that 


technique on thyroid would --


MR. SIEBERT: It wouldn’t be appropriate. 

MS. BEHLING: Okay, well, then we have --

MR. SIEBERT: You don’t use it for DCFs 

greater than one. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, we have a case later on 


here that it’s not appropriate. 


Where are we here? 


MR. GRIFFON: Sixty-nine point two. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90 

MS. BEHLING: That was 69.2. Sixty-nine 


point three, failure to include recorded 


neutron dose uncertainty estimates. Same 


issue. 


MR. GRIFFON: So 69.2 you’re okay for this 


particular case? 


MS. BEHLING: For this particular case 


because I think this is a -- what cancer is 


this one, a colon? A liver, this is a liver 


cancer, and that’s one on the list so that’s 


okay. But later on, under Case 71, this is 


not appropriate. 


So we can move on to 69.4, selection 


of solubility class not claimant favorable. 


Hans, do you want to help me out here? 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): I’m trying to 


read it myself here. It’s been a long time. 


MS. BEHLING: I believe our response to 


NIOSH’s, NIOSH responded to us on this 


particular issue, and I believe again we were 


questioning why would you use those chest 


count MDAs to compare to this urinalysis 


because of our interpretation of that 


statement that we read to you earlier in the 


site profile that indicated that we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

91 

interpreted that you should not be using the 


chest count MDAs when you have urinalysis 


data. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it’s intended for a 


missed dose calculation. 


MS. BEHLING: Missed dose, right. 


MR. HINNEFELD: But if you have bioassay 


data, urine and lung counts, and you’re doing 


a fitting, then you should try to fit the 


data. 


MR. SIEBERT: Or at least not be 


inconsistent with any other data that you 


have. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


MS. BEHLING: Are we okay with that, Hans? 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yeah, I think 


this is a repeat of something we just --


MS. BEHLING: Yes, it is, the first case, I 

think 67. 

MR. GRIFFON: Can you just recap for me 

because I haven’t looked through this in 


awhile? Sixty-nine, this individual, I mean, 


the assumptions are still appropriate given 


the time the person worked there and et 


cetera? I mean, you’re dealing with chest 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92 

counts here that started probably in the ‘70s? 


MR. SIEBERT: Right. 


MR. GRIFFON: So any of the, and all counts 


were below the MDA? Is that what I’m 


gathering here on this particular one? 


MR. SIEBERT: I believe what we wrote up is 


the fact that if you assume Type S, it would 


have been clearly seen in the chest counts. 


The chest counts, yeah, they were in the ‘70s 


through the ‘80s and into the ‘90s. 


MR. GRIFFON: All right, I see now. Okay, 

go ahead. 

MS. BEHLING: The next finding is 69.5, the 

use of triangular distribution that assumes 


zero MDA over two as your mode and then 


maximum is MDA, if that’s appropriate. And I 


don’t believe we got a response from NIOSH on 


this. 


MR. HINNEFELD: What was the number on that? 


MS. BEHLING: Sixty-nine point five. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We have not provided that 


yet. 


MS. BEHLING: No, so we have not gotten a 


response on... 


MR. GRIFFON: This has come up before as 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

93 

well, hasn’t it? 


MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t believe so. I think 


it’s just this finding that --


MS. BEHLING: Hans, do you want to elaborate 


on this? 


MR. HINNEFELD: -- it’s been around here for 


awhile. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): I think the 


point here, Stu and Mark, is that when you 


have consistently values that are below MDA, 


it is not unreasonable to use a triangular 


distribution that has a lower end value of 


zero. But when you have positive values, 


especially for isotopes that have a long 


residency time, the assumption of starting out 


with zero seems to obviously have very little 


merit when you have positive values that are 


detectable. 


So that was the point here. 


Obviously, plutonium doesn’t come and go, and 


if you see it once or twice you realize that 


when you don’t see it, it’s just below the 


radar screen. And so the question is is it 


reasonable to start off with a triangular 


distribution since it’s also possible for you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

not to have anything in here. And that was 


the point of this particular finding. 


MR. GRIFFON: So if everything’s less than 


MDA you’re saying this might be appropriate, 


but if you have --


MR. SIEBERT: And actually, I believe the 


response to the finding is over to Dave Allen 


for review. But generally speaking, these 


were, except for the one that was assessed as 


a positive result, these all were below MDA. 


And I think when the finding, the case was 


examined, there was a misinterpretation as to 


what the results on the chest count cards 


were. They were looking at net counts as 


opposed to another column which should have 


been the dif counts. And when you look at 


that, it makes perfectly good sense that half 


the counts were below zero. One was zero, and 


two were slightly above zero. So it’s very 


fitting, they were all clearly less than --


MR. HINNEFELD: We’ve got a response coming. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

MR. SIEBERT: It’s coming. 

MS. BEHLING: Sixty-nine point six, dose --

I’m trying to remind myself what this finding 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

95 

really is. Dose entries for Plutonium-241 as 


electrons with energies greater than 15 keV 


appears to have been ignored. We were 


supposed to look at this further. 


Hans, do you remember this? We’re on 


page 15 of our write up. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yeah, I’m 


trying to recall. This has been a year and a 


half or two years. 


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, we focused on looking at 


NIOSH’s response to some of these internal. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, SC&A to review. I mean, 


maybe just let’s put this all on everybody’s 


radar. Before the next Board meeting we’d 


like to get these final responses in because 


we’re down to four or five, I think, items on 


this. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think the finding is 


that there’s no electron dose in the internal 


in the IREP because NP-241 is an electron 


emitter, but our response is that, well, we 


took that energy and threw it into the alpha 


dose. It’s going to be claimant favorable, 


and it saves us a whole string of lines of 


IREP input. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96 

MS. BEHLING: That’s right, yes. 


MR. HINNEFELD: So we don’t have to have all 


these lines of very small doses greater than 


of those electrons. We’ll just throw that 


little bit of dose into the alpha dose. 


That’s what our response is. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay. And I think that that’s 


fine because I see this a lot on the same 


lines on the IREP sheet. 


MR. GRIFFON: I’ll leave a placeholder, but 


probably it’s okay. 


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, I’ll mark it as for us 


to look at again. 


And again, we’re back on 69.7 is again 


this fission product issue and whether the 


assignment of internal dose from fission 


products is complete or incomplete based on 


the methodology you’re currently using. 


And 69.8, the use of a triangular 


distribution is not claimant favorable. 


MR. HINNEFELD: This actually sounds very 


similar to what we just talked about. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): This is 


identical to the issue I just talked about. 


MS. BEHLING: And then 69.9 --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 -- 

23 

24 

25 

97 

MR. GRIFFON: So that’s forthcoming, that 


response, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, in fact, it’s a blank 


on our information we provided. 


MS. BEHLING: Sixty-nine point nine, use of 


environmental internal exposure values to 


account for likely tritium, iodine and uranium 


inappropriate. Okay, I guess we’re 


questioning, it appeared that the individual 


worked in areas where he would have been 


exposed to tritium, iodine and uranium. 


However, that wasn’t, that was 


included, I guess, in the environmental dose. 


Is that correct, Hans? It was included in 


environmental; however, we’re questioning if 


that shouldn’t have been calculated as part of 


his workplace exposure, his occupational 


exposure, as opposed to being considered 


environmental. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Well, I guess 


it’s the difference between using MDA over two 


MS. BEHLING: Right. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): -- as opposed 


to the data contained in the TBD that talks 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

98 

about environmental exposure. There was a 


lack of parity between the two approaches for 


calculating those values. In other words, MDA 


over two would probably exceed by a margin the 


values assigned under the environmental 


exposure conditions. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And I guess that fits with 


our philosophy is that environmental exposures 


are supposed to be used for someone who wasn’t 


exposed to that. And if someone was exposed 


to that, then you would have either missed 


dose, bioassay or MDA over two. Or if they 


were exposed, you know, where they were in a 


job where they were likely to be exposed and 


you didn’t have bioassay data or some sort of 


coworker approach or something like that. 


But environmental intake or 


environmental exposure is supposed to be used 


for people who didn’t have the opportunity to 


be exposed to that during their job. In this 


particular case it looks like we have tritium 


bioassay data for this person. So if they got 


environmental exposure to tritium, that would 


be, you know, along with their occupational 


exposure to tritium. So you will, by 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

evaluating their tritium bioassay record you 


have evaluated both components, both what they 


received environmentally, and what they 


received occupationally. 


Similarly, for I-131, the total 


fission product approach, you know, if it 


works out, would address the total fission 


product approach for the iodine as well. And 


the person wasn’t monitored for uranium and so 


the conclusion was, well, this person didn’t 


appear ever have the opportunity to be exposed 


to uranium, and so therefore, they were given 


the environmental intake for uranium. 


MS. BEHLING: However, I think we are 


questioning here if there was occupational 


dose assigned for the tritium and the iodine 


for this individual in addition to this 


environmental dose. Unless that was --


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it says the bioassay 


results have been assessed and determined to 


be less than one millirem. So it wouldn’t be 


included on the chart. If it was less than a 


millirem, we wouldn’t put it on the IREP input 


sheet. The I-131 won’t be listed specifically 


because there’ll be this fission product 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100 

number that was used on the fission product. 


And so that’s why it won’t appear. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, I didn’t read your 

response. 

MR. GRIFFON: And that analysis wouldn’t 

show up anywhere in the final DR record that 


you assessed the tritium, and it’s less than 


one millirem? 


MR. HINNEFELD: That’s a good question. It 


wasn’t in the folder that you guys got. I 


guess it wasn’t there. I don’t know what the 


DR said right now. 


MR. GRIFFON: I don’t know. I’m just asking 


the question now. I don’t know, but that 


could be --


MR. HINNEFELD: It must have been done for 


us to reach this conclusion. Now, whether we 


did it and said it in the dose reconstruction 


report or -- I just don’t know. 


MR. GRIFFON: So where do we stand on that 


one, Kathy? I just want to know. 


MS. BEHLING: Maybe we can go back and look 


at that and because it’s been awhile. 


MR. GRIFFON: The only question I would have 


on that is, I mean, your explanation seems 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

101 

reasonable. The question I would have is, 


given the work history or the lack of specific 


work history, how do you determine 


environmental versus whether he could have 


been in uranium areas for instance? 


MR. HINNEFELD: I’d have to go look at the 


case. I mean, the person, he was monitored 


for bioassay for a couple different things, 


and so the question then is did they catch him 


for those radionuclides and then for some 


reason overlook him on uranium. 


MR. GRIFFON: That’s what I mean. He was in 


rad areas so was he exclusively in areas where 


there wasn’t uranium. And he could have been. 


I mean, he wasn’t monitored for uranium. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t have enough with me 


to really make a statement about it. We can 


take a look and see what we --


MR. GRIFFON: Maybe just a little more 


follow-up on that. 


MR. GRIFFON: I think we’re on to 70 now. 


MS. BEHLING: Seventy point one, 


inappropriately converted recorded photon dose 


to thyroid dose. I think we agreed with 


NIOSH’s response, so we’re fine with that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

102 

Seventy point two, failed to assign 


recorded photon dose uncertainty. Again, this 


goes back to the discussion that we had 


earlier, and is this, this might be the case. 


This is the thyroid dose and --


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Kathy, I have 


some --


MS. BEHLING: Yes, go ahead. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): The issue was 


that if you use the DCF default value of 1.0, 


you don’t have to worry about the issue of 


uncertainty because the DCF one is greater 


than the actual value; and therefore, the need 


for uncertainty has been eliminated. 


However, in this case the target 


tissue is thyroid and if you look at the DCF 


for the thyroid for 30 to 250 keV it’s 


actually greater than one. It’s 1.017. And 


so the default value of 1.0 is not actually 


claimant favorable, and moreover, even if you 


do use the real one, 1.017, you still should 


be applying an uncertainty value to that 


value. 


So the explanation that was provided 


is okay for all of the tissues and organs that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

103 

were cited here that starts out with the 


bladder, bone marrow, colon and so forth. But 


what is lacking is the thyroid which is the 


tissue of concern here. 


MS. BEHLING: So your explanation is not 


appropriate for this particular case because 


of it being the thyroid. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we provided additional 


information as part of what we provided in 


May. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, a Word document you have 


here, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh, there’s a Word 


document, and there are a couple it looks like 


workbooks. 


MS. BEHLING: Now if I’m referring to this 


same Word document --


MR. HINNEFELD: The one we just looked at 


doesn’t have 70.2 on it. There’s a separate 


70.2 for a document that was submitted. 


MS. BEHLING: Oh, okay, because what I’m 


showing on this one it says finding, oh, this 


is 71, yeah, maybe that was the wrong one. It 


says 71.2, see 69.2. In this case it doesn’t. 


I think that should read 70.2 rather than 71. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

104 

MR. GRIFFON: Stu, can you or Scott 


summarize the --


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we reworked the case 


using the Monte Carlo combination, you know, 


measured dose with uncertainty times DCF, 


triangular DCF, and I’m still refreshing my 


memory myself. 


MR. SIEBERT: The POC actually went down 


when we made that assumption. Remember the 


process that we used was not using a factor of 


one as a DCF, but a factor of 1.017, which was 


a mode of the triangular distribution for the 


thyroid in the original assessment. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We used 1.017, but we used 


it as a constant. So we didn’t include the 


uncertainty of the dose in the dose 


reconstruction. So that’s what we’ve gone 


back to do now is to do that on this. 


MR. SIEBERT: And once we did that for both 


the measured and the missed in the Monte Carlo 


the POC went down. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, marginally. 


MR. SIEBERT: Marginally. 


MR. HINNEFELD: If you do it only on the 


measured, it went down very fractionally. If 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

105 

you did it on, if you Monte Carloed both the 


measured and the missed, it went down four 


percentage points, from --


MR. GRIFFON: That’s interesting that adding 


in uncertainty to the DCF brought the POC 


down. 


MR. SIEBERT: Well, if I remember correctly 


that the distribution is skewed higher so if 


you use the mode, it’s actually the high end 


of the distribution. Whereas, when you use 


the full distribution it’s more --


MR. HINNEFELD: When you do Monte Carlo you 


sample downward. 


MS. BEHLING: Now, are we on 70.4 or did I 


skip some here? Okay, 70.3, no, 70.3, 


potential failure to properly account for 


missed neutron dose. I guess you had an 


initial response; however, it says that you 


would re-evaluate this case. 


MR. GRIFFON: Well, you stand by your 


original assessment, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, and what you’re saying 


here is that you used OTIB-002 for 


hypothetical internal or --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

106 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, this was an OTIB-002 


case. There’s a large internal assigned to 


this administrative worker. 


MS. BEHLING: So even if there was missed 


neutron --


MR. HINNEFELD: And as I recall the facts of 


this case it was a clerical worker whose work 


location was essentially adjacent to the 


reactor building or something like that. And 


how do you know that there weren’t some 


neutrons there. Well, they were 


administrative, I guess you can’t say there 


were zero neutrons, but since there’s a TIB002 intake in this, administrative worker, we 


felt we were sufficiently conservative on the 


case. 


MS. BEHLING: I agree. 


And then lastly on this case, 70.4, 


inconsistency between CATI and data used to 


assign neutron dose. Again, we’re going back 


to the neutron dose so I think we’ve covered 


that. And since this was --


MR. GRIFFON: And the inconsistency was that 


this individual reported that they worked near 


a reactor? Is that --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

107 

MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And they set off the PCM, 


and they also reported they would alarm the 


PCM on occasion. And our response is PCMs go 


off in the case of radon a lot. In fact, I 


think she even said she alarmed with radon. 


I’m not sure whether she said that or not. 


MS. BEHLING: I’m going to move on to 71, 


and I’m scanning through 71, and I see here 


NIOSH agrees. I don’t think there’s any open 


issues on 71. 


Seventy-two, again --


MR. GRIFFON: Wait, 71.2, wasn’t there 


something on 71.2? I think we have the same 


response as 69.2, but --


MS. BEHLING: Okay, yeah, 71.2 again is that 


uncertainty issue. I did not bring that case 


with me. I’m not sure what this cancer is. 


MR. GRIFFON: But it’s okay for this case 


you believe because the thyroid was the one --


MS. BEHLING: The thyroid was the one and 

that was 70. 

MR. GRIFFON: So it’s okay. 

MS. BEHLING: I don’t know what the cancer 

is on this case. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108 

MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t have anything else 


on there. 


MR. GRIFFON: Let’s go on by that one. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, we’ll go ahead. 


Seventy-two, I see 72.1, NIOSH agrees. 


Seventy-two point two, SC&A agrees. Again, 


going down through -- that’s it for 72. 


Moving on to 73. 


MR. SIEBERT: Just to let you know 71 was 

pancreatic. 

MS. BEHLING: Pancreatic, okay, so I think 

we’re okay then. 


Seventy-three -- 


MR. GRIFFON: Seventy-three point five, I 


just want to look at the revised response 


here. There’s a 9212 neutron question is what 


this is, right? 


MS. BEHLING: Failure to account for all 


assigned neutron dose. I thought NIOSH agreed 


with that and will review job locations for 


EE. I didn’t see a re... 


MR. GRIFFON: Well, they did review I guess, 


and this is what I have. 


MS. BEHLING: I’m really going to have to go 


back and look at that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

109 

MR. HINNEFELD: I think you want to look at 


the job title of the person. If I’m not 


mistaken, this person is a machinist. 


MS. BEHLING: A machinist? 


MR. HINNEFELD: And this neutron sources in 


9212 are secure storage area for enriched 


thorium^. So I wouldn’t expect a machinist to 


be working ^ storage area. 


MS. BEHLING: I will look at that. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I think this is that. 


MR. SIEBERT: I believe he was actually a 


pipe fitter. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, it was a pipe fitter. 


Okay, so he’d be working on through the plant. 


How much of his time would be in the enriched 


storage area? 


MR. GRIFFON: I don’t understand the finding 


on that one. Failure to account for all 


assigned neutron dose, or for missed neutron 


dose? 


MS. BEHLING: Well, I believe in this 


particular case the reason we used the word 


assigned neutron dose is meaning that it would 


have to be like a coworker type of dose as 


opposed to it would be an unmonitored --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

110 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I believe it’s a case 


where -- I don’t know. It may have been an 


unmonitored person --


MS. BEHLING: As opposed to missed. 


MR. GRIFFON: I would say for all 


unmonitored neutron dose instead of for all 


assigned dose. 

MS. BEHLING: That’s fine. We can change 

that. 

MR. GRIFFON: It may be moot because the 

response may --


MS. BEHLING: Right, and I’ll look at that 


again. 


I don’t see anything else on 73. I 


think NIOSH agrees with everything. 


MR. GRIFFON: Seventy-three point eight is 


the next red line I have here. I think you’re 


missing this version. 


MS. BEHLING: I am. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, but this is something 


we’ve had before. 


MR. GRIFFON: And 74.3 is the same thing, 


right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


MS. BEHLING: Seventy-five, no finding. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

111 

Seventy-six, failure to properly account for 


all missed photon dose. And I guess we were 


supposed to do something here. I didn’t do 


that. I’ll have to look at this. 


MR. GRIFFON: Is that an SC&A action? 


MS. BEHLING: Yes, this was an SC&A. I was 


going to review this issue. I’m going to have 


to go back to this. I apologize. I can’t 


answer that at this point. 


MR. GRIFFON: Now at 76.3 we have a NIOSH 


action to provide calculations to show 


bounding. 


MS. BEHLING: Again, this is the 


hypothetical intake model for 76.3. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I remember this. I’m not 


sure I’ve got that loaded on my -- because 


that was done. 


MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah, it was done 4/6, 


right? It was awhile. 


MR. HINNEFELD: It was an e-mail. One I e-


mailed to you. 


MR. GRIFFON: I was going to say I don’t 


have that on the disk. 


MS. HOWELL: Which case are we on? 


MR. GRIFFON: Seventy-six point three. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

112 

MS. HOWELL: We skipped 75. 


MS. BEHLING: Seventy-five there were no 


findings. I’m talking too fast. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, 76, I should have sent 


a package of four folders that, this was a 


case where TIB-002 was used and the person I 


believe had bioassay data. And so what we 


agreed to do was provide IMBA information or 


the information that illustrated that the 


bioassay would result in a lower dose than the 


TIB-002 does. So there’s a set of files here 


that were provided on that e-mail. 


MR. GRIFFON: Is this a case number? I can 


say the case number, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: No. 


 MS. HOWELL: No. 


MR. GRIFFON: So there is a zip file 


actually that was sent, right, with some 


documents? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Right, they were zipped, and 


there were like four files in folders in there 


that --


MR. GRIFFON: Well, it’s still zipped on 


mine, but we have them. 


MS. BEHLING: We were questioning -- and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 -- 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

113 

here again I think this is another QA issue, 


as I recall there was one case I know that the 


individual had 56 bioassay samples, but they 


still used OTIB-002. And based on at least my 


understanding of OTIB-002, that should not 


have been used based on the number of bioassay 


MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t think we’d do it 


today. Of course, we wanted to get a lot of 


cases done. OTIB-002 is a lot faster than to 


put in 50 bioassay data points. And there was 


probably a fairly simple comparison you could 


make given the bioassay record and what TIB002 assigned them. 


Like if you could take their highest 


bioassay point and say what if they got that 


on their last day of employment and that’s 


still lower than what OTIB would predict on 


that day, OTIB-002, then you’re probably good. 


So there’s probably a simple comparison you 


can do to say OTIB-002 is going to be 


bounding. And they went ahead and did it. 


Now today we probably wouldn’t do that. And 


the analysis I believe was a little more 


complete than that. I don’t think it was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

114 

quite such a simplistic evaluation. 


MR. GRIFFON: So SC&A is going to follow up 


on those files, right? 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. 

MR. GRIFFON: Along with the work group. 

MS. BEHLING: Case 77, no findings. 

Case 78, I see first finding NIOSH 


agrees, second finding NIOSH agrees, third 


finding NIOSH agrees. 


MR. GRIFFON: Wait, 78.3, okay, that’s the 


same one again. 


MS. BEHLING: Seventy-nine, the only one I 


see where there’s supposed to be further 


discussion is 79.4, failure to properly 


account for all missed photon dose. I believe 


you had some additional records. Did some 


additional records come in on this case? 


MR. HINNEFELD: This is a case where we 


have, in this person’s file there’s a bioassay 


record that was generated later after the 


initial Los Alamos response. Los Alamos, we 


actually participated with Los Alamos in 


building a database of these old bioassay 


records. And so once they had built this 


database they then provided us these files of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

115 

bioassay records. 


And this disclaimer is placed on the 


reports they send when they provide the 


record, a person’s entire record on the 


database. And the reason for that is that 


there may be bioassay for this person for some 


radionuclides other than the common ones, you 


know, some of the more exotic radionuclides 


that were not captured in the effort to build 


the database. So the disclaimer about some of 


this data, you know, this record may not be 


complete, applies to the data provided out of 


the Los Alamos database. 


Of course, ^ C class in Los Alamos 


largely because of that issue. So that’s the 


origin of that comment. Now, if I’m not 


mistaken -- we’re on 79.4, right? 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And the finding is about the 


missed photon dose and did we properly account 


for the missed photon dose because there were 


periods of not being monitored. And the 


record says, well, the record’s not complete 


because of that comment in the record we’ve 


received from Los Alamos. But the comment 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

116 

about the record maybe not being complete is 


strictly about what we call LANL bioassay 


repository record. That’s what that comment 


refers to, not to the external dosimetry. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Now, that’s my recollection 


of the case. 


MS. BEHLING: Because I was going to ask why 


are you responding with bioassay data to a 


photon in electron dose. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Because I believe the 


finding is based on the comment that’s in the 


bioassay data. I think that’s the case. 


 MS. BEHLING: I don’t remember. I don’t 


remember, and I can go back. 


MR. GRIFFON: I guess we have to revisit 

this one. 

MS. BEHLING: Yes, in fact, we’ll have to 

revisit 79.4, 79.5 and 79.6. They’re all 


related, same issues. 


Okay, 79.7, SC&A agrees there is no 


further action. 


And 80, again, I see NIOSH agrees with 


one, number two, finding two under number 80, 


SC&A agrees. Is that it? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

117 

MR. GRIFFON: 80.4 is going to be site 


profile, right? 


MS. BEHLING: Yes, it’s a site profile 

issue. 

MR. GRIFFON: And 80.5 the same way. 

MS. BEHLING: Yes. 

MR. GRIFFON: So I think we’re, we just made 

an initial run through the fourth set. So we 


still have a few outstanding things, but not, 


we’re certainly narrowing it down. I mean, my 


real goal on this one is to close it out in 


October’s meeting. October 3rd we have a 


couple of hours for the subcommittee. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we’re going to try to 


get the missing technical information, we’re 


going to try to get that out a week in advance 


to everybody. If I could do it earlier, I’d 


do it earlier. I’ve asked for it a little 


earlier than that from ORAU because I wanted 


to make sure that we can take a look at it. 


So it’s our, but really anything less 


than a week ahead of time is marginally 


useful. I understand that. Anything that 


gets out less than a week before the meeting 


is hardly useful because you don’t have time 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

118 

to even read it and digest it. So what we’re 


going to do --


MR. GRIFFON: Well, we tend to get a lot of 


stuff right before these meetings. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the stuff I sent last 


week though, there wasn’t a lot of new stuff 


there. I mean, I sent the initial six matrix, 


but the rest was sort of a recap of --


MR. GRIFFON: No, no, I’m saying before the 


full Board meetings we always get a lot of 


material. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, yeah. I really intend 


to get these out. 


MS. BEHLING: I will make an attempt, too, 


but we’re finally taking a vacation after many 


years. 


MR. GRIFFON: All right we can either, two 


options, take an earlier lunch and then we can 


beat the rush in the restaurant, which I think 


makes sense actually. All right, let’s take 


an early lunch and come back at 12:30. Is 


that all right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Works for me. 


MR. GRIFFON: Twelve-thirty, folks on the 


phone? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

119 

DR. WADE (by Telephone): Christine will be 


there. I’ll join you as soon as I can. 


DR. MAURO: Mark, it’s John. Can you hear 


me? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: Mark, would you mind sending me 


the matrix for the sixth set so eventually 


when we do get to that. 


MR. GRIFFON: Maybe I’ll let Stu e-mail 


that. We’ll get it to you, John, somehow. 


DR. MAURO: Thank you. 


(Whereupon, a break for lunch was taken at 


11:30 a.m. and the meeting resumed at 12:35 


p.m.) 


DR. BRANCHE: We’re reconvening the 


Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction after a 


lunch break. I’m Christine Branche. I’m 


going to be functioning as the DFO until Dr. 


Lew Wade can come back on the line. I just 


want to make sure we have a quorum, and then 


I’m going to hand over to Mark. If I could 


just make sure for the Board members, Mark 


Griffon? 


MR. GRIFFON: Here. 


DR. BRANCHE: Brad Clawson? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

120

 MR. CLAWSON: Here. 

DR. BRANCHE: Robert Presley? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Here. 

DR. BRANCHE: Wanda Munn, are you on the 

line? 

 (no response) 


MR. GRIFFON: She said probably one o’clock 


so she --


DR. BRANCHE: Are there any other Board 


members who have joined the meeting by phone? 


 (no response) 


DR. BRANCHE: Is there anybody on the line 


at all? 


 MS. CHANG: This is Chia-Chia Chang in the 


NIOSH Director’s Office. 


DR. BRANCHE: Hey, how are you doing? Any 


other NIOSH staff? 


 (no response) 


DR. BRANCHE: Anyone from another federal 


agency? 


 (no response) 


DR. BRANCHE: Any member of Congress or 


their representative? 


 (no response) 


DR. BRANCHE: Any worker or workers’ 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

121 

representatives? 


 (no response) 


DR. BRANCHE: Okay, Mark. 


MR. GRIFFON: And SC&A, are you guys on the 


line? 


 (no response) 


MR. GRIFFON: John Mauro? No? 


(no response) 


DR. BRANCHE: Forgive me for not asking 


about SC&A. 


FIFTH SET OF CASES MATRIX
 

MR. GRIFFON: All right, we’ll start with 


the fifth set we’re going to move into, and 


we’re probably going to go through some of our 


same issues on remembering where we stand. 


But my sense was that we had not as many large 


issues outstanding on this, but I think we’ll 


do the same thing, run through them and if 


there’s nothing there, we’ll just skip over it 


fairly quickly. 


I’m trying to find, Stu, you sent our 


latest version just last week, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: There’s nothing updated on 


that. 


MR. GRIFFON: But just so people have, so 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 -- 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

122 

we’re working from the same document. Do you 


have a date when you sent that out? 


MR. HINNEFELD: It would have been the sixth 


or seventh probably. 


MR. GRIFFON: So around the sixth or seventh 


of last week. Is this the fifth 20 case 


matrix with OCAS initial response for April 11 


MR. HINNEFELD: And then there’s an SC&A 


response. It was updated September 7th . I 


don’t think I did anything on it since then. 


MR. GRIFFON: And then the other one is the, 


the other thing you sent out was the fifth set 


findings additional information. So it’s a 


smaller with just some issues on it, right? 


So let’s work with the large matrix to start 


with. And we have 81.1 should be our first 


one, right? 


Kathy, you have an older version, 


right? 

MS. BEHLING: Yes, I have an older version. 

MR. GRIFFON: But I think you’ll be all 

right. 

MS. BEHLING: Do you want me to start then? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

123 

MS. BEHLING: Eighty-one point one, this is 


the use of the OTIB-004 is inappropriate for 


compensable claims, and I think we’ve gone 


through that. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We’ve gone through that 


history before. 


MS. BEHLING: And 81.2, reviewer could not 


reproduce modeled external photon doses from 


uranium ingots. That’s a Table 3 issue in 


that OTIB-004, and I believe you revised OTIB004. 	We’re up to now maybe Rev. 4? 


MR. HINNEFELD: I know we’ve published Rev. 


3. I don’t know if there’s a Rev. 4 yet or 


not. 


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, and I believe this has 


been corrected in those tables. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it was corrected in 


Rev. 3. 


MS. BEHLING: And 81.3, improperly converted 


model photon doses to organ dose of interest. 


Let’s see here. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, there was a mixture of 


geometry supplied that kind of follows on to 


the previous finding as well. The values in 


the table were incorrect because there was a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

124 

mixture of geometry supplied. Plus we’re 


obliged to look at, and see if there’s any 


impact on these cases that were done 


beforehand. If the new revision required 


results in doses being higher than they were 


previously, then we’re required to evaluate 


those. 


DR. WADE (by Telephone): This is Lew. I’m 


on just for your information. I’ll be off and 


on but just so you know. Thank you. 


MS. BEHLING: John Mauro, are you on the 


line? 


 (no response) 


MR. GRIFFON: Just to go back, 81.2 I put in 


procedures review, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, further thoughts. I 


think that may be on the review list but for 


this particular finding the procedure has been 


revised to address this petition. 


MS. BEHLING: That’s right. In fact, I’m 


not even sure that this table exists in the 


revised --


MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that’s true. 


MS. BEHLING: -- it’s been replaced. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so the procedure was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

125 

revised and no further action. 


MS. BEHLING: And no further action. And we 


are reviewing even that revised procedure. 


MR. GRIFFON: SC&A reviewing revised 


procedure. What’s the PROC number on the 


final rev.? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it’s OTIB-004, at 


least Rev. 3. 

 MR. PRESLEY: This thing here has Rev. 2 on 

it. 

MR. SIEBERT: It’s Rev. 3, page change 2 is 

the present one. 


MR. GRIFFON: All right, so 81.3 we’re up 


to? 


MS. BEHLING: Eighty-one point three, 


improperly converted modeled photon doses to 


organ of interest. No, that one we just 


talked about. There was some issues in OTIB004 where they used 25 percent isotropic as 


opposed to 100 percent AP, and that, I 


believe, has been taken care of or we’ll be 


looking at that issue --


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, our response at this 


point would be the same as the one before. 


That procedure, that OTIB has been revised to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

126 

address this one. That’s our position. 


MR. GRIFFON: But I also have something 


about program evaluation report will be 


reviewed. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, in a case where --


well, I mean, you can look at -- we’re 


evaluating right now, this issue, the 100 


percent AP issue and the PER expanse of that, 


applies to Savannah River which we’ve seen in 


dose reconstructions here because the model 


originally had a mixture of geometries. 


And there are a handful of AWE sites 


where it may be relevant; it may not. I mean, 


when you go back and look at this and you 


decide, okay, well, what’s the next form of 


the site profile, it may not be an overall 


upward change that has to be addressed. So 


the AWE sites may or may not show up on this 


PER, but there will be an evaluation. If they 


don’t, it will be because there was a 


determination that it wouldn’t change. 


MS. BEHLING: This is just a side issue if I 


can ask a question about the PER process. I 


assume that you have a database for the PER 


process, and that if you had one individual 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

127 

that it was affected by several PERs, you 


would be able to identify them? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, a database actually is 


being built. It’s kind of nifty, but it’s an 


application. It uses sort of the existing 


database as an application of data, and I 


guess, populates a few more fields. But yes, 


when we evaluate a case that’s affected by a 


Program Evaluation Report, the first thing we 


do is all the current practices are used on 


that dose reconstruction. 


So any other changes, like there are 


multiple changes out there now where the PER’s 


not yet done. When the case comes up on any 


one of the PERs, whichever the first ones 


we’re working on it right now, insoluble 


plutonium, that’s Super S plutonium is where 


most of the effort is going, all the other 


changes are incorporated into that. So it 


gets recorded as being addressed and being 


subject to all those other PERs, but it is now 


done. This PER work on all those other PERs 


is now done. 


And so everyone, and when we do this 


evaluation, really if there’s more than one 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

128 

PER, when we’re looking at a set of claims 


because we know that this PER affects it, 


we’re determining is there a chance that it 


could change compensability, and therefore, we 


have to rework it. If there are other PERs 


that affect that one as well, the answer’s 


almost always, well, we have to rework it 


because it just gets too complex to do the 


analysis any other way. 


MS. BEHLING: That was my question. 


MR. GRIFFON: I mean, we can go through 


these, some of these had no action before so I 


don’t think they’re going to change, right? 


MS. BEHLING: Right, and I don’t have --


MR. GRIFFON: Eighty-one, I mean, even by 


the case, is there anything else on 81? I 


don’t have anything else. 


MS. BEHLING: No. I don’t have anything. 


MR. GRIFFON: Eighty-two is an SEC class, 


right? So we drop that? This case fell into 


an SEC class? It’s a note I have. I just 


wanted --


MS. BEHLING: Oh, I don’t know. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I can find out. 


MR. GRIFFON: It’s Harshaw. It must have 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

129 

been early Harshaw. 


MR. HINNEFELD: But, I mean, the findings, 


the first several findings should have been 


done on TIB-004. 


MS. BEHLING: Right, these are all TIB-004 


findings. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, and then the last, 82.5, 


is these overarching issues again, right? 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


MR. GRIFFON: The resuspension, ingestion. 


MS. BEHLING: And I think that those will be 


addressed in the OTIB-004 procedure review. 


MR. GRIFFON: Or in one of those other 


policy documents. 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


Let’s see, same responses for 82.7, 


response to 81.1. I don’t think we have 


anything down to, can we go into 84? 


MR. GRIFFON: Eighty-two point six says 


generic ingestion model. That’s okay. 


Eighty-two point seven --


MS. BEHLING: Goes back to whether OTIB-004 


should be used for compensation. 


MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, yeah, so if we 


can go on to 83. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

130 

MS. BEHLING: Eighty-three, same issues that 


we discussed in 81. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, same as 81? 


MS. BEHLING: Uh-huh. And let’s see here, 


83.4, modeling assumptions for doses from 


external surface contamination may not be 


claimant favorable. Again, this was discussed 


under 82.5. So these are broader issues. 


All the way down to 84. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yup, we’re up to 84. Now, 


some of these --


John, are you on the line? 


 (no response) 


MR. GRIFFON: Here’s my question on which, I 


had talked to John Mauro about a couple of 


these cases which were AWE cases, and I felt 


like they weren’t given an advance review 


treatment. And I think they should have been 


because when we selected these cases, we kind 


of said -- I’m not sure if this is one of 


them, but a lot of these are basically mini-


site profiles because we may only have one 


case from that site to review. 


So even if it’s a greater than 50 


percent case, you know, this is also our 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

131 

opportunity to do kind of a mini-site profile 


so a more advanced review, even for a 


compensable case, and I didn’t think, I raised 


a few of those. I forget what they are, but 


John looked at those and SC&A agrees with 


that. And I think they’re going to reassess, 


and I want to make sure John jumps in when 


those come up. 


MS. BEHLING: In fact, we do try to do that 


on most cases. I guess the Harshaw case that 


we were talking about, in fact, there was no 


exposure matrix and we had, I think, about 37 


references to a lot of older documents. And 


we did look at those source documents, but I 


don’t think we did a lot of explaining in our 


report as to the fact that we looked at those, 


and we agreed that NIOSH’s assumptions or if 


we disagreed, we would have identified that in 


the finding. 

MR. GRIFFON: Right, because Harshaw was one 

of them. 

MS. BEHLING: Harshaw was one of them, yeah, 

Harshaw was one of them and Bridgeport Brass, 


I believe. And we’re going to go back and 


look a little closer at those. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

132 

MR. GRIFFON: So we should make a note that 


even though this Harshaw-particular case was, 


fell within the SEC timeframe, I question 


whether the, is Harshaw the entire period in 


SEC? Or how do we --


MR. HINNEFELD: No, Harshaw, the early years 


is an SEC until those bioassay began. Harshaw 


is under review, isn’t it? Isn’t the Board 


reviewing Harshaw? 


MR. GRIFFON: Are we reviewing the site 


profile there? So that may be a moot point. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, isn’t that Gen 


Roessler? 


MR. GRIFFON: I thought that was Linde. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, maybe it is Linde. 


MR. GRIFFON: She’s got Harshaw, too? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Let me get on here, and I’ll 

tell you. 

MR. GRIFFON: Linde is. I know she’s got 

Linde. I don’t think Harshaw is in it. 


MR. HINNEFELD: It’s not. 


MR. GRIFFON: Anyway, my sense was that if 


it was not, if it was one of those, because we 


specifically in the Board meetings a couple 


times we’ve said, well, --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

133 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, you’re right. I think 


actually the Harshaw --


DR. WADE (by Telephone): There’s no Harshaw 


review at this point in the site profile. 


MR. HINNEFELD: It got, it was actually a 


pretty recent, the Harshaw site profile. 


 MR. PRESLEY: The paperwork came through, 

too. 

MR. GRIFFON: And that’s how I raised it to 

John. I know this wasn’t available when you 


did this review on the fourth set, but this 


may be the only partial case that we run 


across so I think you should do a 


quote/unquote mini site profile review under 


that dose reconstruction review process. 


Because that’s kind of what we, when we 


selected some of these cases we said, you 


know, the reason -- We’re not so interested in 


this one case necessarily. We probably 


haven’t done this site at all, so we’re going 


to have to make sure we give a, sort of a 


blush to that site. 


MR. HINNEFELD: In order to accomplish the 


intended objective it might be better to 


select a Harshaw case now because --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 -- 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

134 

MR. GRIFFON: Select another Harshaw case? 


MR. HINNEFELD: -- because the site profile 


for Harshaw, if I’m not mistaken, was only 


recently completed. It was completed after 


the SEC class determinations. 


MR. GRIFFON: So it wouldn’t have been used 


MR. HINNEFELD: And so it would not have 


been used earlier. It was not used on this. 


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, I think it was not used 


in this case. That I know. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And it would be used on 


cases that started after the SEC class or non-


presumptive cases is what the site profile 


would be used for. So see if you say let’s do 


a detailed review of this dose reconstruction 


in using the Harshaw site profile, the two are 


pretty much unrelated. You could say let’s do 


a detailed review of the Harshaw site profile 


which may be a different task. Or you can 


say, well, if we selected a Harshaw case that 


was done relatively recently, then it would be 


done in accordance with the site profile. 


MR. GRIFFON: You could be right, but the 


one that was done earlier than the site 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

135 

profile, better give you consistent results, 


was the one after that, you know what I mean? 


You did it before so it’s not consistent with 


the site profile, you’ve got a problem. I 


don’t think we’re going to have that here. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t think you’ll find 


any non-compensable cases that include 


employment during the SEC class because I 


don’t think we had a way to do them, and so I 


don’t think there are any of them out there. 


MR. SIEBERT: I believe that’s why OTIB-004 


was used. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, OTIB-004 was used in 


this case. So I don’t think we’ll see any 


non-compensable ones then, but in terms of 


dose reconstruction, this dose reconstruction 


may be considerably different than what the 


site profile if this person continued -– and 


probably using TIB-004 it would be different. 


See, there’s no dose reconstruction here that 


will -- this is a TIB-004 case -- that will 


allow you to determine the adequacy of the 


Harshaw site profile is where I’m going. 


MR. GRIFFON: So we may have to select 


Harshaw --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

136 

MR. HINNEFELD: Select a Harshaw case --


it’s just a thought. I just don’t see how 


you’re going to do it because you don’t have a 


dose reconstruction that addresses the Harshaw 


that’s done in accordance with the Harshaw 


site profile. 


MR. GRIFFON: Then our action may be to, you 


know, and this is more of a program or a Board 


action, it may be to recommend another Harshaw 


case that’s done using the current set --


MR. HINNEFELD: And since it’s recent, there 


may not be a finally adjudicated case 


available right now. 


MS. BEHLING: Right, although I do know that 


in other AWE cases, in fact, I think 


Bridgeport Brass was one of them, when we 


worked on that case, although it was completed 


using OTIB-004 methodology, at the time we 


reviewed it, Bridgeport Brass did have an 


exposure matrix available. So we did make 


something of a comparison between those two. 


MR. GRIFFON: Go ahead. I just wanted to 


bring that up and see if John --


John, are you on the phone yet? 


 (no response) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

137 

MR. GRIFFON: No. 


MS. BEHLING: Where are we? 


MR. HINNEFELD: We were on 84. 


MS. BEHLING: Eighty-four, okay, 84.1, data 


used by NIOSH considered inadequate for 


determining POC. Again, NIOSH is indicating 


that this is a site profile issue, not a dose 


reconstruction issue, and that it’s going to 


be discussed. Okay, because this is an AWE 


again, and as John went through these AWEs, he 


did identify areas where we’re going to need 


to look a little bit closer at that site 


profile. 


MR. HINNEFELD: So this would fit that 


category, what we were talking about. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


MR. HINNEFELD: This one because I recognize 


this site. 


MR. GRIFFON: This is where I stopped when I 


saw my note for ^. So this is one that I 


think I’m going to put as an action SC&A to 


examine site profile closer, whatever. SC&A 


to conduct mini-site profile review. 


MS. BEHLING: And quite honestly when I went 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

138 

through this matrix, I only went back through 


to recall things that I had responded to 


NIOSH’s response on. I didn’t go through all 


of these again, and I didn’t bring that case 


with me. I couldn’t fit it in, so I’m not 


sure I’m even aware of what site, but this is 


Harshaw. 


MR. HINNEFELD: No, this is Huntington. 


MS. BEHLING: Huntington, I’m sorry. 

MR. GRIFFON: And do we have that revised 

site profile? 

MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t believe the revision 


of the site profile is done yet. 


MR. GRIFFON: It’s not done, okay, because I 


see a note on here to revise site profile to 


subcommittee. So we’re still waiting. That’s 


kind of an action for --


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the site profile’s not 


yet done. Well, you know what? I should add 


that to my list of stuff we have to do. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that’s why I’m raising 


it. So SC&A can’t do anything until we, 


right? We’re waiting --


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it would be best to ^. 


MR. GRIFFON: I mean, it just makes sense if 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

139 

it’s close. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I know what the issue is and 


who it’s assigned to. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, it looks like finding 


84.2, 84.3 and 84.4 are all pointing to the 


fact that they’re all tied to site profile 


work. 


And 84.5, procedural inconsistencies 


regarding occupational medical dose. Again, 


this is site profile. 


I see the same responses next 84.6, 


84.7, 84.8 and nine all reference response to 


84.3, so that’s covered. 


Eighty-four point ten, I believe again 


this is a site profile issue, same with 11 and 


12. 


Okay, 85, 85.1, reviewer questions 


whether method for assessing photon exposure 


from uranium slabs and plates is 


scientifically correct and claimant favorable. 


I believe this has again to do with whether we 


select the 95th percentile value. 


MR. GRIFFON: And I think you’ve got 


something for us on this one, Stu, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: For 85.1? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

140 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, on your mini-list I 


thought that was listed. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Eighty-five one, actually 


there’s nothing has been provided. I mean, 


there’s a description of ^ analysis, but --


MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay, because I say NIOSH 


to provide written response or justification. 


MR. HINNEFELD: But there’s been nothing to 


provide. 


MR. GRIFFON: Nothing yet. Okay, I was 


looking at your list. So that’s just an 


outstanding action, right? 


MS. BEHLING: Eighty-five point two, 


reviewer questions whether methods used to 


reconstruct inhalation exposure associated 


with resuspension are scientifically sound and 


claimant favorable. This is an issue again --


MR. GRIFFON: Well, no, 85.2 I have SC&A is 


in agreement on this particular application. 


It’s not really the broad one. You said SC&A 


agrees resuspension based on wipe data is 


appropriate. I think it wasn’t clear whether 


it was wipe data. There was some particular 


issue. 


MR. HINNEFELD: During the discussion, last 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

141 

subcommittee discussion, John raised a point 


of survey measurements, survey instrument 


measurements, and we do have removal data. We 


felt like based on removal data we’d have this 


resuspension value in this instance was 


appropriate. 


MR. GRIFFON: And John agreed. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And John said, well, there’s 


a survey measurement that’s such-and-such. I 


said, well, a total contamination survey would 


be available for resuspension, the removal 


survey was available for resuspension. And 


John essentially acquiesced as I recall. So 


that’s the nature of that comment, and also 


that comment’s reflected in the mini-matrix 


about this that we have on the mini-matrix the 


response to address resuspensions in general. 


MS. BEHLING: John Mauro, did you pick up? 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yes, I’m on the 


line now. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, John, thanks. We’ve 


started working on the fifth set, and some of 


these initial questions have to do with the 


AWEs, and I feel less than adequate to always 


answer some of these. In fact, I don’t know 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

142 

if you just heard. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yeah, I heard a 


bit. I’m sorry. I joined you at one o’clock. 


I was tied up with some other matters. The 


only matrix I have in front of me now is the 


Task Six because I assumed that that was where 


you might need my participation. But I should 


be able to help you out also with the fifth 


set. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, because we were just 


talking about reconstructing these inhalation 


exposures and my matrix did not state that 


SC&A agrees, but it was Stu’s recollection 


that you did concede this issue. 


MR. HINNEFELD: On the specific site we’re 


talking about here, John, not the, there’s 


still the overall --


MR. GRIFFON: The global issue. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Which site was 


this now? 


MR. GRIFFON: Superior Steel. It was an 


issue of, I mean, I have SC&A agrees as well 


on this one. It was an issue of resuspension 


but based on wipe data. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, there’s removal 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

143 

contamination data from this location. And 


while the approach may not have been based 


originally on that resuspension of that real 


contamination, we felt, we’ve done this 


approach. There is removal data. It 


certainly is consistent. The airborne we’ve 


generated is certainly consistent with this 


removal. That was our argument I believe in 


the last subcommittee meeting. 


MR. GRIFFON: My notes indicate you agree 


with that, John. 


DR. MURO (by Telephone): The basic approach 


to, when all is said and done it’s pretty 


simple. In other words, there’s going to be a 


certain amount of radioactivity on surfaces. 


If you have data, am I hearing what you’re 


saying that on this particular case you have 


Superior Steel case I guess one of them. 


That’s part of the sixth set. You’re saying 


you have data on surface contamination? I 


thought you worked with data that was from 


Simonds Saw. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t know how the model 


was developed originally, John. But in our 


initial response for this finding, we say 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 -- 

24 

25 

144 

there are thousands of residual contamination 


measurements is what we say. I don’t know if 


that’s thousands of smear samples or 


something. But, well, actually, I’m sorry. 


That is, that may not be specifically for this 


site. But they’re talking about the types of 


removal contamination that has typically been 


observed in residual contamination periods. 


And based on that this doesn’t seem 


unreasonable. I don’t, Mark. I don’t think 


we’re going to get anywhere on this today. I 


think we may, both sides may, or I think SC&A 


probably --


MR. GRIFFON: Take a closer look, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and just based on, you 


know, the information, you know, what they did 


here and how does it, maybe compared to 


Bethlehem Steel, or similar to Bethlehem Steel 


that if it worked there, it’s okay here. 


MR. GRIFFON: Stu, you provided a little 


more information, too, in this response 


document that I have, right? I mean, there’s 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


MR. GRIFFON: And Kathy I don’t think has 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

145 

that so I would say let’s --


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I thought I sent 


everything to everybody. 


MR. GRIFFON: It was just e-mailed last week 


though. A couple of the e-mails had two 


attachments so I don’t know if, anyway I would 


just say we’re not going to resolve it 


necessarily right now, but let’s just flag it 


as SC&A will follow up and look at your 


response and go from there. How’s that? So 


that’s for 85.2. 


John, you don’t have this matrix, huh? 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): No, the only one 


I have in front of me now I just received. My 


apologies, I only have the matrix for the 


sixth set. I was assuming that that was the 


area where I would be able to help out, but 


I’ll listen in. I should be able to pick up 


on some of these because there’s a lot of 


recurring themes at these AWE sites. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We’ve actually committed to 


provide more technical response on this. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Which one was 


that now? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Eighty-five dot two, right? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

146 

Isn’t that what we’re talking about? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


MS. BEHLING: John, Doug also just e-mailed 


us that he sent the matrix to you. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): The reason I’m 


having a problem is I was out of commission 


for many days with my computer and that’s the 


reason for my delay. Things are back online 


again. I don’t have this matrix you’re 


looking at, but which site are you referring 


to now, which AWE site? 


MR. GRIFFON: Superior Steel. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Okay, this is a 


Superior Steel case in the fifth set? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Okay, I can catch 


up real quick. I’ll just pull the volume and 


take a look at that case. Superior Steel, if 


I recall, had a matrix. 


MR. GRIFFON: Why don’t you take a look, 


John, and we’ll go ahead while you’re looking 


at that. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Okay. 


MR. GRIFFON: The next couple are pretty 


straightforward. Eighty-five three and four 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

147 

are, I have handle in generic resuspension 


model and generic ingestion model response, 


right? 


MS. BEHLING: That’s right. 


MR. GRIFFON: And then 85.5, there was no 


response by NIOSH, but they have one in this 


little matrix that we need to get a copy to 


Kathy maybe. 


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, maybe I have it. I 


just, I don’t remember seeing anything for the 


fifth set. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Eighty-five five we still 


owe you some. 


MR. GRIFFON: Oh, it just says provides, so 


yeah, so NIOSH does owe a response. 


MR. HINNEFELD: A lot of these, everything 


on here we owe you technical information. 


I’ve written some things here that are largely 


notes to myself, you know, kind of capture 


conversations --


MR. GRIFFON: I thought these were 


responses, but they’re really just updates. 


MR. HINNEFELD: No, they’re more so than 


anything they’re notes to myself to remind me 


of what happened in the last --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

148 

MR. GRIFFON: Like an action list. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And so we still have 


not provided you any of the promised technical 


information on these items. 


MR. GRIFFON: So that’s 85 three and four 


are really the generic responses, and then 


85.5 is a specific response for this, NIOSH 


owes us. 


John, did you get a chance to look at 


that case? 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yeah, I’m looking 


at it right now. Just give me a second. It 


looks like, I’m looking at the case, and 


Superior Steel, it looks like you made use of 


Simonds Saw data to do submersion and 


contamination exposures and that part of it 


looked fine. 


We’re talking external now. We had no 


comments on external exposure from submersion 


or contaminated surfaces because you used the 


data from Simonds Saw. And we concur that the 


data from Simonds Saw certainly would be a 


bounding condition for air concentrations and 


contaminated surfaces. 


MR. GRIFFON: No, specifically, we’re 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

149 

looking at 85.2, your finding --


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): I’m looking at 85 


right now. Oh, we’re moving on. Let me get 


to the finding. I’m looking at the finding, 


85.1, hold on, let me get to 85.2 if you can 


just give me a moment. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Good afternoon, 


folks, this is Wanda. I’ve been on and off. 


This is the third time I’ve been on. I’m 


working with a very touchy telephone. 


Hawaiians are not well known for their high 


technology on the beach, so I’m doing the best 


I can here. I gather we’re somewhere in set 


five? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, the fifth set, we’re on 


case number 85 actually. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I sort of gathered 


that, and since I have only a single phone 


line, and I’m just outside the edges of their 


wireless communication here, I have only my 


laptop and what’s on it. I don’t have access 


to anything on the web. 


MR. GRIFFON: John, any luck --


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): I’m looking at 


85.2? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

150 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): And this has to 


do with the resuspension of deposited 


radioactivity. 


MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Now there are two 


aspects to that approach. One is how did you 


come about with the amount of activity that 


are on surfaces, and then there’s the 


resuspension factor. Now, right now I guess 


from looking at the write up I’m trying to 


see, it appears that the activity on surfaces 


may have somehow been related to Simonds Saw 


data or from actual empirical measurements. 


I’d have to read it more carefully. 


As opposed to, Stu, let me ask you, as 


opposed to that deposition of 0.00075 meter 


per second approach? See, my main concern 


with the modeling of resuspension and 


ingestion and surface contamination at AWE 


facilities is a recurring theme that goes 


toward the use of this deposition velocity of 


respirable particles. Given that you know 


what the airborne levels are from measurements 


or from some default assumptions, then you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

151 

assume what’s on surfaces is from those 


particles falling at their terminal deposition 


velocity for five micron AMD particles. 


And my recurring theme on all of these 


AWEs is that that really is not the way to 


predict what’s on surfaces. Now I guess my 


question to you is on this particular one, was 


the dust loading on surfaces based on 


empirical data for that site or some other 


default value? 


MR. GRIFFON: That’s what we’re not sure on. 


John, I think the answer is we’re going to 


have to have both sides kind of follow up on 


this. Because in reading the NIOSH response 


I’m not sure if this average is based on --


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I’m not sure what it’s 


based on. 


MR. GRIFFON: -- site data or broader data. 


I think we need follow up. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): The other half 


which is clear though, where there is no 


ambiguities, you used a resuspension factor 


given the dust loading on the surfaces and the 


Becquerels per meter squared, then you apply a 


resuspension factor of one times ten to the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

152 

minus six per meter. Now, that’s a pretty low 


resuspension factor for an indoor working 


environment. And I would have expected 


something perhaps ten times higher. 


MR. GRIFFON: I think that’s covered in your 


85.3 which we’re saying needs to be handled in 


their generic response to the resuspension 


model. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Okay, that’s 


fine. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so I think we’re covered 


there. Eighty-five two is really the one we 


need follow up on on both sides. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We do owe additional 


information on that. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


MR. GUIDO (by Telephone): Hey, this is Joe 


Guido. I can chime in here a little bit if 


you want on Simonds. 


MR. GRIFFON: On Simonds or this Superior, 


but --


MR. GUIDO (by Telephone): Oh, I thought the 


case was at Simonds Steel. 


MR. GRIFFON: Superior Steel. 


MR. GUIDO (by Telephone): Sorry. Let me go 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

153 

back to mute. 


MR. GRIFFON: Another follow up question on 


this is, is there a matrix for Superior Steel 


or a site profile or is it a --


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yes, Superior 


Steel has a matrix. 


MR. GRIFFON: So I’d ask, John, when we 


review this 85.2 that you, you may have 


already done it but make sure you consider 


that matrix as well. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yes, it turns out 


just about every AWE site, it’s pretty rare 


that you have real data for real people. And 


most of the time now there is a matrix out 


there for most of the cases. And, yes, I 


reviewed the Superior Steel matrix in order to 


comment on this method. So every commentary 


just about for every one of these cases that 


we’re looking at is based on a review of the 


exposure matrix for that facility that stands 


behind that case. 


MR. GRIFFON: And this comment stems from 


something I said a little earlier which I 


think was before you got on line, John, which 


is I had some questions about a few of the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

154 

AWEs that you reviewed where -- and we 


discussed this -- whether they were what I 


would call quote/unquote mini-site profile 


reviews because they were likely the only time 


we were going to select a case from that site. 


And we had asked that they would be sort of an 


expansive review given that we wouldn’t run 


across that again. And I think the example 


before you came online was the Huntington 


Pilot Plant. 


Is that right, Stu? Is that the one? 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


MR. GRIFFON: Huntington Pilot Plant, so if 


you’ve done this already for Superior, that’s 


fine, but it was just raised in that context. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Let me, for all 


of these AWE cases that I reviewed or we 


reviewed where it required us to review the 


exposure matrix, and that’s where I would say 


the vast majority of them. The review of the 


exposure matrix was one of, okay, did they 


have, what I would say based on just looking 


at the exposure matrix, adequate bioassay 


data, adequate air sampling data to 


characterize the potential for an internal 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

155 

exposure. 


And in the exposure matrix they 


summarize the data they have, in some cases 


quite a bit of data. And I stop at that 


point, and I think I may have mentioned, and 


in fact I sent you, Kathy and I sent you a 


memo recently that sort of summarizes which 


exposure matrices for AWE facilities that we 


reviewed but not in depth and which ones we 


reviewed in depth because they were assigned 


to us as a task one. 


But to say that the review that we 


perform when we do a study like the Superior 


Steel we’re talking about, I don’t go into the 


original raw data. In other words I look at 


the data that’s summarized in the report, take 


it at face value and ask myself the question 


does this data capture the time periods and 


the types of activities that are relevant for 


this worker. 


And usually lately the cases I’ve been 


reviewing is the dataset appeared to be fairly 


comprehensive, and more importantly, in 


general, the exposure matrix adopts using the 


upper 95th percentile of the dataset. So I’m 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

156 

speaking in general now, and I can check 


Superior Steel and see what was done there, 


but in general, for many of the cases that 


I’ve been reviewing, especially when we get to 


the sixth set, I notice that it’s becoming a 


more common practice to use the upper 95th
 

percentile on the dataset. Now that being 


said that’s the extent to which -- and I look 


at. I take the data on face value. We do not 


go back and actually pull the raw data, let’s 


say off an O drive if it’s available, and 


check it. That’s the kind of thing we do for 


a site profile review. So that’s why I call 


it a mini review. 


MR. GRIFFON: That’s fine, John. I think 


that’s, I just want to make sure that we’ve 


done that for some of these sites. So I’m 


going to check in on that every once in 


awhile, and if you’ve done it; you’ve done it. 


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, and that’s appropriate. 


And, John, I do think that you actually, when 


I review them, I sense that you go beyond just 


the individual that we are assessing in this 


particular case because I think your review 


tries to also capture other populations of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

157 

workers out there. You indicated that you’re 


looking just only for this particular worker, 


but I’ve seen, based on some of your reviews, 


that they go beyond that. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yeah, for 


example, I’m looking at Superior Steel right 


now, and actually put in the report the data, 


so that’s why the matrix doesn’t really 


capture. I actually say here’s the data that 


they have and how they used it. And now on 


that basis I guess I walked away with a fairly 


good sense that there was a lot of data that 


was useful including breathing zone data Ted 


collected. 


And they used the upper 95th
 

percentile, I believe, to come to, they did 


some curve fitting, we checked the curve fit 


so we did a lot of work of processing the data 


as you would in a site profile review. So I 


guess we walk away that the dataset seemed to 


be pretty comprehensive and the use of the 


lognormal distribution to represent the data 


seemed to be reasonable. And using the upper 


95th percentile seemed to be claimant 


favorable. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

158 

So on this case I guess, except for 


the few points regarding the contamination on 


surfaces and the resuspension factor, the 


other aspects of the model, the direct 


inhalation for example, seemed to be pretty 


good. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): This is Wanda. 


I’m sorry to interrupt. I don’t have a 


question except what date is the matrix from 


which we’re working? 


MR. GRIFFON: We have an updated one that 


was sent around 9/7/07 that Stu sent out. 


There were like two or three e-mails that same 


day or within a day of each other. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Five or six. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I have the fourth 


set of DRs from him, but that doesn’t include 


85 that you’re talking about. 


MR. GRIFFON: No, this is the fifth set. 


MR. HINNEFELD: It’s a separate message. 


MR. GRIFFON: It should be labeled the fifth 


20 case matrix with a string of dates on it 


and the last thing says updated September 7, 


’07 at the end of the file name. It’s a very 


long file name. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

159 

MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I changed it to 


something else and cleverly changed it to 


something that I can’t easily locate now. 


I’ll find it by date then. Thank you. 


MR. GRIFFON: All right, so 9/7, Wanda. 


Yeah, John, and when I’m asking these 


things about the mini-site profiles, I’m just 


asking that you consider the scope, not 


necessarily putting you on the spot right now 


for an answer as to whether you think it was 


adequate or not but just that the scope was 


considered. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Well, I mean, in 


this review, I’m looking at it now, this case. 


You could see by the review. I don’t know if 


you actually have the hard copy in front of 


you, but the big book, in it you can see the 


data that we had and we compiled it all, and 


out of that dataset they picked off the, of 


the breathing zone and process air data, they 


picked off the upper 95th percentile value 


which seemed to be claimant favorable from the 


point of view of the direct inhalation. 


So, yes, we did review the data, and 


we did score it such that that particular 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

160 

aspect of the internal exposure, namely the 


inhalation of airborne activity during the 


metal working operations seemed to be claimant 


favorable and scientifically sound. So I did 


look at that data. But the problems resides, 


the comments we had, the findings have to do 


with the resuspension model, the deposited 


radioactivity, not with the inhalation part. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, and we have our actions 


on that so we’re set to go on that. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yeah, and I did 


review, I mean, I did look pretty closely at 


the data itself in the site profile, tabulated 


it, actually ran some curve fits to see where 


the 95th percentile fell. So we did do a lot 


of data processing, but we didn’t actually go 


back to the original source documents and the 


original individual measurements that were 


made that we would normally do for a site 


profile. 


MR. GRIFFON: Number 86. 


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, we’re going to move on 


to 86. That’s a Linde case I think, John, and 


if you can support me on some of these, we’re 


just going through all of these findings at 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

161 

this point. 


The first finding on 86.1 is modeled 


photon dose based on inappropriate method. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): I’m going to 


catch up to you. Again, I came prepared to 


discuss the sixth set. I did not do any 


homework and get ready for the fifth set, my 


apologies. Let me take a look, and the first 


case is what, 86.1? 


MS. BEHLING: Right, this is --


MR. GRIFFON: Right, 86.1, I have SC&A in 


agreement with this one as well. 


MS. BEHLING: And Doug has also e-mailed you 

the matrix. 

MR. GRIFFON: What I’m going to do. I have 

notes here, and if I have, like on 86.2 I have 


NIOSH to provide full written response. What 


we can do is if there’s agreement on these, 


I’m going to try to skim over them. 


But I’m going to update this matrix 


and e-mail it out to everyone. And obviously, 


as always, if you have any disagreement with 


what I’ve written in the response, we can edit 


back and forth so nothing’s written in stone 


at this point, but just to get through the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

162 

matrix because I do want to get through the 


sixth matrix as well. I’m going to kind of 


skim over the ones where I say that there was 


agreement at the last meeting. I don’t want 


to rehash everything here if that’s okay. 


MS. BEHLING: That would probably be the 

best --

MR. GRIFFON: So 86.2 I have that NIOSH is 

going to provide a written response. And I 


think at this point, Stu, we don’t have that 


yet, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: No. 


MR. GRIFFON: But you have that note as 


well. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I do have that note as well. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): I see that. I’m 


familiar with that. I just read it. I know 


this case. If you want to talk about it, 


fine. If you think that we can move on, 


that’s up to you. 


MR. GRIFFON: No, I think we’ll move through 


it. I think we’ll move through it. 


Eighty-six three and four, or 86.3 is 


a site profile issue we have here, and the 


question is now -- okay, this might be, Linde 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

163 

is on our list for site profile review, 


correct? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


MR. GRIFFON: So that’s going to, I have 


that this one should be deferred to the site 


profile review under Gen Roessler’s work 


group. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yeah, I think 


that’s important because, as I understand it, 


for the Linde site profile review at our last 


working group meeting NIOSH had mentioned that 


they uncovered a large set of I believe 


bioassay data for Linde. And that would 


change everything because right now I don’t 


think they didn’t have that data, those dose 


reconstructions were done. 


And so I think that it may be that 


after looking at that bioassay data it may 


need a substantial revision to the site 


profile; and therefore, of course, it would 


have a ripple effect on the cases that were 


already reviewed. 


MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, so that will, 


we’re not going to lose that but as far as 


tracking, it’s going with the site profile 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

164 

review. 


Eighty-six four I have no further 


action, and then we’re on to 87. Case 87 is 


an MIT case. And this was, I guess the only 


issue we have here is TIB-004 being used for a 


compensable case. 


MS. BEHLING: That’s right. 


MR. GRIFFON: And the other question, the 


other note I had here was review TIB-004 to 


see if appropriate to include MIT. In other 


words is MIT a site that should be, and I 


don’t think it is in the appendix now of TIB004. So there’s two problems here. Number 


one, it was maybe used for a site that it 


shouldn’t have been for. Originally, I think 


it probably, you didn’t exclude it by the way 


TIB-004 was written. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t really know. I 


don’t recall. I think that during this period 


when these TIB-004 compensables were done that 


was applied. There were a couple decisions 


that were done incorrectly. And so it may 


have gotten, it may have ^. 


MR. GRIFFON: So it’s sort of the same 


issues though that we did on 82, case 82 and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

165 

81. 	We have the same responses. 


MS. BEHLING: And similar in when we go on 


to 88 which is --


MR. GRIFFON: Eighty-eight, 88 is a NUMEC 


case, right? 


MS. BEHLING: -- same types of issues. 


MR. GRIFFON: Same types of issues, right, 


so we don’t have to go through those. 


MS. BEHLING: And 89 then we start with the 


DOE sites. That first one is Savannah River. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, go ahead, Kathy. 


MS. BEHLING: The first one on 89.1 is what 


we talked about this morning I believe, and 


that was the issue of converting the recorded 


photon dose to organ dose and the incorrect 


DCF triangular distribution for the DCFs in 


the workbook. And that has been corrected 


with, I think, version one of the EDCW 


workbook. 


MR. GRIFFON: And I also have on here it’s 


the same thing, that PER review question, 


right? So we can capture that in PER review. 


The workbook’s been revised, right? 


MS. BEHLING:	 Right. 


Eighty-nine point two, improperly 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

166 

converted missed photon dose to organ dose. 


Again, this is that LOD over two issue where 


not assigning missed doses for anything that’s 


LOD over two. And we discussed that earlier. 


Wanda, did you want to add anything to 


that issue? 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I was just going 


to comment on that. You’re fading in and out 


badly on my almost antiquated telephone that I 


have here. 

MS. BEHLING: I’m sorry. I’ll try to speak 

up. 

MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I don’t believe 

that it’s you, Kathy. I think that it’s 


probably the system. 


But I was going to mention, Mark, I 


think I sent you a note, didn’t I, about the 


question of our taking under advisement the 


concern about whether current workbooks cover 


adequately instruction to the reconstructor 


with reference to the timing of the change of 


LODs for all of our sites? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I did send you a 


note on that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

167 

MR. GRIFFON: Yes, you did send me that 


note. Yeah, you’re refreshing my memory now, 


yeah. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): In the other group 


we sort of came to the conclusion that this 


particular issue is one that we probably 


should be addressing in the subcommittee 


rather than in a specific other work group. 


MR. GRIFFON: Well, I’m not sure if this 


overlaps, but I think it overlaps with my 


question of those DR guidelines. Because I 


think the DR guides have that kind of 


information in them. Am I right or wrong on 


that? 


MR. SIEBERT: Well, I’m thinking that this 


issue got a little confused. This is the 


discussion as to the TBD says 40 millirem for 


the LOD and in one of the responses we 


discussed the fact that one of the site 


documents discusses a 30 millirem LOD, 


correct? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


MR. SIEBERT: Okay. As far as I’m able to 


ascertain from all the claims that you guys 


have talked about and examined, they all used 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

168 

what was in the TBD for the LOD. So the fact 


that we responded in one response saying we 


have a document saying it was 30, that doesn’t 


get into the accounting of, we haven’t used 


anything other than 40 for that timeframe. In 


the tools it’s all been 40. What was used at 


the time was 40. 


I think it was just being pointed out 


that there was some documentation from the 


site from awhile back saying that it may be 


perhaps as low as 30. However, there’s been 


no change in the decision to use 40 as the 


LOD. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): That was the 


concern of the work group. That information 


of this sort varies so much from one site to 


the other that there was some concern that the 


reconstructor would have to be unusually 


familiar with a wide variety of sites and 


processes in order to have some assurance that 


the LOD that was being chosen for that 


particular site at that particular time was a 


good one. 


MR. SIEBERT: Once again, the tool had 


exactly what was in the TBD so unless the dose 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

169 

reconstructor would have gone in and changed 


that, there would have been no problem. And 


in these cases there was no problem because 


the tool used was what’s in the TBD. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I guess what we 


were looking for is reassurance that that’s 


the case in all sites. That there is 


instruction in the TBD that will be adequate 


for the dose reconstructor to understand when 


any changes might have occurred. 


MS. BEHLING: And, Wanda, one of the other 


things that SC&A’s doing is in reviewing the 


site-specific workbooks, as I mentioned to you 


during our conference call, the external dose 


workbook for many of these sites has annual 


tabs. That’s where this LOD value is listed. 


And during our workbook review for 


these site-specific workbooks, I’m sorry, 


external workbooks, we are looking at each one 


of those tabs and trying to compare that to 


what is in the site profile to ensure that 


when the LOD value changes from 40 to 30 or 


20, that that is correctly entered into the 


workbook. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): If that’s already 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

170 

being done then --


MR. GRIFFON: That should cover it. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): -- it seems to me 


that the concern of the other group was, it’s 


covered by your actions. 


MR. GRIFFON: I think so, Wanda, yeah. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): We’ll just proceed 


on the assertion that any difference that is 


significant will be picked up by SC&A’s 


review. 


MS. BEHLING: That’s true. Yes, and we have 


looked at that. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Thank you, Kathy. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so 89.3. 


MS. BEHLING: Eighty-nine point three, 


failure to properly account for all missed 


photon doses. That’s the issue we were just 


discussing. Did I skip one? 


MR. GRIFFON: No, we’re at 89.3. 


MS. BEHLING: Oh, I believe what I did 


incorrectly is when I was talking about 89.2, 


I referred to this missed, when I saw missed, 


and it was actually that response that NIOSH 


has, that does go to the DCF issue. Because 


the DCF issue applies to both recorded and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

171 

missed photons. I’m sorry. 

MR. GRIFFON: So we just talked about 89.3. 

MS. BEHLING: We just talked about 89.3. 

MR. GRIFFON: But 89.2 we covered before, so 

we’re all right. 


MS. BEHLING: Eighty-nine point four, 


improperly converted recorded neutron doses to 


organ dose. Same DCF issue as with the 


photons, both recorded and missed neutrons. 


Eighty-nine point five, now, let’s see 


here. This is one that I did go back and look 


at. Initially, SC&A’s finding was that we 


felt that NIOSH failed to account for all 


missed neutron doses. And I believe when we 


first went through this matrix, NIOSH came 


back with a response and I believe at that 


point I was asked to go back and look at this 


again to see if I agree with that response. 


And I really pored over this data for 


quite some time, and I still believe -- and 


you can see my write up here -- I still 


believe that between ’71 and ’79 there is 


enough of a doubt and enough of a 


justification and for claimant favorability 


just based on the information that I saw in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

172 

the Savannah River site reports, and it was 


also supported, I believe, by some of the 


OTIBs out there. It’s difficult to determine 


based on available records. 


I also looked at the other data that 


was in this person’s files. And I said it 


should also be noted that throughout both 


these employment periods, the EE’s external 


doses are relatively high with high shallow to 


deep dose ratios. And I also quote something 


out of OCAS TIB-007 that states if an energy 


employee was monitored for neutron exposure in 


’71 or later, and they did not change jobs or 


work areas, the EE should be considered to be 


exposed to neutrons prior to 1971. 


So the other thing I looked at, and as 


Scott indicated earlier today, one of the most 


difficult things that we encounter while 


looking at these records is trying to place an 


individual at a certain work location. And a 


lot of times there are codes in these records 


that will be an HP area code. And sometimes I 


don’t even know what the HP area code 


represents. 


I do have all the data that NIOSH, I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

173 

believe, has. However, if I can go down 


through those records and see that that HP 


area code hasn’t changed and the department 


code hasn’t changed, then based on that I have 


to assume that that person is still working in 


that particular area. So just based upon 


everything that I looked at, based on the 


TIBS, I just felt between 1971 and 1979 the 


individual should have had missed neutron dose 


for this case contrary to what NIOSH’s 


response was. I don’t know if NIOSH wants to 


go back and revisit this or not. 


MR. GRIFFON: What was the specific, I mean, 


Stu, on your abbreviated matrix you say that 


you are going to provide additional 


information to support your argument, right? 


So I think they conceded that action, but I’m 


just going to ask you a follow up, Kathy. 


What convinced you for ’71 through ’79; was it 


job title or building information? I mean, 


specifically, what, because I have a little 


note here to myself saying that it seems 


reasonable given the job evaluation. 


MS. BEHLING: I based it on job title, based 


it on neutron-to-photon ratios, and I guess 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

174 

other data. 


MR. GRIFFON: I mean, I think we, I mean you 


could probably flesh out that job analysis a 


little more because if NIOSH doesn’t agree 


with that --


MR. SIEBERT: This is an individual who was 


a rigger that was assigned to travel and 


transportation, and it’s, I mean, Stu, we do 


owe you a more specific response to this. But 


I know we’ve looked at this in the last few 


days and the person has, I think, ten millirem 


in ‘74 and 20 millirem in ‘78 of assigned 


neutron. And it’s one of those should you 


assign neutrons or not questions which is a 


very valid question. 


We looked at it on the claimant 


favorable side and say if we had gone ahead 


and assigned it, would it make a difference in 


compensability just to determine if we really 


needed to go further on that. And it’s not 


going to make a difference in compensability. 


Actually, when you combine it with the other 


things that we have to do for this case like 


the LOD over two and the triangular 


distribution, so on and so forth, the POC 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

175 

actually went down even adding missed dose for 


his neutrons. 

MR. GRIFFON: So you’re going to provide 

that, right? 

MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, that’s coming. 

MR. GRIFFON: So we’ll see that because it 

sounds like it’s going to be a, not going to 


impact --


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we owe you an 


additional technical explanation. 


MR. GRIFFON: Eighty-nine six, is that what 


we’re on? 


MS. BEHLING: Eighty-nine six, yeah. 


MR. GRIFFON: I have SC&A accepts the NIOSH 


response. 


MS. BEHLING: That’s correct. 


MR. GRIFFON: Eighty-nine seven I have SC&A 


agrees also. 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


MR. GRIFFON: Eighty-nine eight, this is the 


fission product question so we have --


MS. BEHLING: That we discussed earlier. 


MR. GRIFFON: That’s right, we discussed 


that earlier. 


And then 90 is the same as 89, the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

176 

case? 


MS. BEHLING: Ninety is also a Savannah 


River site case. 


MR. GRIFFON: I have the responses all tie 


back to 89, so I think we have the same 


responses there, right? And 91 as well? 


MS. BEHLING: Ninety-one, again, the only 


one on 91 that I looked at a little bit 


further is 91.5, and again, I looked at 


NIOSH’s response, and I looked at the 


dosimetry data, and I still couldn’t convince 


myself that potentially there was some 


exposure to neutron for several years I 


believe. 


MR. GRIFFON: So this is the same missed 


neutron question? 


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, same issue. 


Ninety-one point six, again, this is 


resolved on the onsite ambient dose, and we 


have agreement. The same with --


MR. GRIFFON: Ninety-one seven is agreement. 

MS. BEHLING: -- 91.7 is an agreement. 

MR. GRIFFON: Ninety-one eight, I have a 

question mark there, so I’m not sure where we 


stand on that one. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

177 

MS. BEHLING: Failed to properly assign 


missed tritium based on cited guidance. 


 MR. PRESLEY: It’s the same as 89.3. 


MR. GRIFFON: No, 91.8? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, over in the comments is 


what it says here. 


MR. GRIFFON: There’s two paragraphs of 


comments here, 91.8. The cited guidance was 


apparently removed from the site profile some 


time ago is what the comment I have from 


NIOSH, starts that way. 


MS. BEHLING: I have to go back and look at 


this one. I believe what we were saying is 


that they didn’t calculate the missed tritium 


dose using the references that they cited. 


Their approach did not match what the guidance 


indicated, I believe. 


MR. GRIFFON: Well, let me put SC&A to 


review further. I think the outcome of all of 


this is that before the October meeting I’d 


really like to focus on the fourth and fifth 


set. We can start the sixth set today, but 


let’s put that on the back burner. Let’s 


focus on closing out the fourth and fifth. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We have a lot to do on the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

178 

fifth. That’s a lot to provide. 


MR. GRIFFON: I mean, we may not even want 


to open up the sixth set because then we’re 


going to have to go through the same process 


again of remembering what we said. So I don’t 


know. Let’s see. Let’s go through the rest 


of the fifth set, but I certainly want to try 


to make some good strong headway on closing 


these two out if that’s possible. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, again, we’re working 


on them but all this technical information in 


the fifth on, we’ve not provided any yet. 


MR. GRIFFON: Ninety-two is another Savannah 

River case. 

MS. BEHLING: Yes, and 92.1 is again this 

failed to properly account for all missed 


photon doses. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Are these findings, you 


know, in my little note to myself about the 


additional technical information we’re talking 


about hierarchy of documents, and are these 


cases where it looks like the dose 


reconstruction was done in a particular 


fashion like in accordance with a procedure 


where the site profile would make it look like 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

179 

it should have been done some other way? Is 


that behind these? I guess maybe I could 


figure it out if I go back and look through 


all these things because --


MS. BEHLING: Overall or for just one 


specific finding? 


MR. HINNEFELD: These two findings we just 


talked about, 91.8 and 92.1. Because in 91.8 


we felt like, well, that guidance of the site 


profile, 4.5.4, isn’t in the site profile 


anymore, but there’s this other technique that 


describes how to do it. And as I recall the 


rejoinder to that was that 4.5.4 was out there 


when this dose reconstruction was done. 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And the dose reconstruction 


was done in this other manner. So that is the 


kind of technical, you know, that’s the kind 


of explanation that I’ve got a note to myself 


as what we need to provide is how come you’re 


able to do this other technique when the site 


profile said, this one particular technique. 


That’s the nature. And I think 92.1 may be 


the same kind of finding based on what, 


because that’s what I’ve got in my notes to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

180 

myself. I’m sorry, it’s similar to 89.3. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, 92.1 goes back to the 


LOD over two issue, so that does not have to 


do with which procedure was being used so --


MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, no, no, no. 


MS. BEHLING: -- no. But you are correct on 


91.8. 


MR. GRIFFON: On 91.8, yeah. You’re correct 


on that one. 


MS. BEHLING: You’re correct there. And 


initially I do recall now that -- you’ve 


prompted my memory -- that we indicated that 


that section was still part of the SRS site 


profile at the time that this dose 


reconstruction was done. And we just thought 


that would be the more appropriate approach to 


calculating --


MR. GRIFFON: So, Kathy, for 92.1 do we have 


a follow-up action? Because I have NIOSH will 


provide written response. But if it’s just 


the LOD over two question, do we need, what’s 


the follow up? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is the discussion 


we had while, you know, our initial response, 


our initial, initial response, said, well, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

181 

there’s this other document that says LOD 


should be 30. 


MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


MR. HINNEFELD: But as Scott pointed out, 


well, even though there may be a document that 


said that, you know, how it ended up in the 


response we sent, the dose reconstructions 


were never done with an LOD 30. And so it 


sounds like there may be an additional, you 


know, just going back, well, making sure if 


the LOD is, I think we just need to go back to 


the original finding and figure out ^. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, 92.2 was another issue 


where I was questioning whether some neutron 


doses should have been assigned. And I read 


through NIOSH’s response, and I agree with 


their response, and I concede this issue. 


MR. GRIFFON: So SC&A agrees. 


MS. BEHLING: SC&A agrees. 


Ninety-two point three --


MR. GRIFFON: And four I have as okay. 


MS. BEHLING: Right, that’s okay. 


And five is the fission product. 


MR. GRIFFON: The fission product question, 


right? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

182 

MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


MR. GRIFFON: So in case 93 now this is a 


Fernald case? 


MS. BEHLING: Yes, and this looks very 


similar to the one we were just talking about, 


again, this LOD over two issue. This value is 


less than LOD over two. I don’t know if 


there’s an issue of what the LOD value was on 


this particular case or not because I see your 


response is exactly the same as the previous 


one. 


MR. GRIFFON: I thought this was not 


treating the --


MR. HINNEFELD: Not using LOD over two as a 


missed dose, but rather using the recorded 


value. 


MR. GRIFFON: But I think the NIOSH, I think 


basically, Stu, you said you agree; however, 


you have large overestimates in the internal 


that would more than cover this. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): The key is in the 


last sentence, too. This small difference 


won’t affect the compensability. When we have 


these cases where what was done at the time 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 -- 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

183 

was covered by procedures at the time that no 


longer exist, unless there’s a serious 


question of compensability, then there’s a 


question in the mind about how much effort 


needs to be directed toward anything other 


than that specific explanation. Do we need 


more than that really, Mark? 


MR. GRIFFON: No, I don’t think so in that 


case, in that example you just described. But 


I mean here the only note I have is that NIOSH 


should confirm, and it probably goes to a 


later finding, NIOSH should confirm that the 


internal was an overestimate. So we just, I 


had a note to that effect, and I think that 


was just a matter of SC&A looking at the IMBA 


analysis, right? Or whatever, and making sure 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Just looking at 


the case file? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, but I don’t think we 


need any more on 93.1 if, in fact, there’s 


agreement there. 


MS. BEHLING: There is agreement. And this 


issue has now been taken care of in a later 


version of the workbook. It’s done 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

184 

automatically, and the dose reconstructors 


don’t have to look at that issue. 


Ninety-three point two, this was 


occupational medical dose, failed to account 


for all occupational medical doses. This has 


to do --


MR. GRIFFON: This was a lumbar spine 


screening question, and NIOSH was going to 


check into that one. 


MR. SIEBERT: I think we owe you a response 

on that. 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So that’s still an 

outstanding. It’s a site-specific question, 


right? 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


Okay, 94, 94.1. 


MR. GRIFFON: I have no action on this. 


MS. BEHLING: Right. 


MR. GRIFFON: And no action on 94.2. And 


95.1 is a Hanford case and SC&A to review. 


MS. BEHLING: And I did, and after reviewing 


NIOSH’s response I’m in agreement with the 


fact that they did not assign the neutron. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so SC&A agrees. 


Progress, we like that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

185 

MS. BEHLING: Ninety-five point two is an 


onsite ambient dose cannot be verified --


MR. GRIFFON: I have okay. 

MS. BEHLING: We’re okay there. 

MR. GRIFFON: Ninety-six one is a Portsmouth 

case. I have SC&A in agreement with NIOSH’s 


response. 


Ninety-six two, I have a question 


mark. I think SC&A was going to re-examine it 


and compare with NIOSH’s implementation guide? 


I’m a little fuzzy on this one. 


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, that was one I did not 


reassess. I guess I missed this one so I’ll 


look at that. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I have we owe you 


something on that. Apparently, it relates to 


the fact that the OCAS ID --


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Photon dose. 


MR. HINNEFELD: -- yeah, OCAS ID-1 says that 


reported shallow dose can be used directly in 


IREP without modification. 


MS. BEHLING: Right. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And we wanted to say, well, 


maybe we shouldn’t actually be saying that if 


the, because the REF is different if it’s a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

186 

photon that’s causing that dose to be shallow 


than if it were beta particles. 


MS. BEHLING: Has this been corrected with 


OTIB-017? 


MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t know. 


MR. GRIFFON: So NIOSH does owe us a 


response on this one. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I didn’t hear what 


Kathy was saying. Something faded off into 


the atmosphere. 


MS. BEHLING: I was just asking NIOSH if 


this might have been corrected with the OTIB017 is one of the more recent shallow dose 


calculation procedures. And that’s a fairly 


prescriptive OTIB, a little bit complex but 


fairly prescriptive, and so it may have taken 


care of this issue. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Hopefully, ^ and 


what we really need is words saying the right 


thing. Maybe that may be the most direct 


solution to closing this one. 


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, I believe NIOSH is going 


to come back with a response on this. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I don’t think this is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

187 

going to be a difficult one though. 


Number 99 I’m up to now. Is that 


where we are? 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


MR. GRIFFON: Ninety-seven and 98 had no 


findings. And number 99.1 has no action, no 


further action. Same with 99.2. 


Ninety-nine point three I have NIOSH 


agrees; however, points out that it’s an 


overestimating approach. Is that accurate? 


MR. HINNEFELD: I think that’s probably a 


colon or... 


MR. GRIFFON: One we’ve seen before, yeah. 


MS. BEHLING: To just go back to 99.1, now 


again, this is a procedure that is an 


overestimating procedure, and this is an OTIB008 and OTIB-010 issue. These are the two 


procedures that have been revised, and they 


still are on our list to review under this 


procedures review matrix. These are two of 


the ones that we have not reviewed the 


revision of these yet. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I’ll put TIB-008 review 


under there, but no action for this case. 


MS. BEHLING: I think I alerted you to that, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

188 

Wanda. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Yeah, right. 


We’re just waiting for your review, right? 


MS. BEHLING: They have not been assigned to 


us for review yet I don’t believe. I think --


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Wasn’t that one of 


the two that we discussed as per the request 


of the full Board? 


MS. BEHLING: I’m not sure. 

MR. GRIFFON: I’m not sure either. 

MS. BEHLING: John, do you remember? 

DR. MAURO (by Telephone): The only 


procedure that we have been explicitly asked 


to review, I think it’s the product procedure, 


Wanda, we spoke about earlier. Other than 


that we have not been assigned any new 


procedures for review or we have not been 


asked to review these two, I guess, six and 


eight. 


MR. GRIFFON: Eight and ten. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Eight and ten. 


No, --


MR. GRIFFON: They’ve come up on a lot of 


findings so we should probably -- Wanda, if we 


didn’t do it, we should have our Procedures 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

189 

group recommend those. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I thought we had 


discussed it, but I’ll check my minutes and 


see. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Right now, Wanda, 


based on my notes, the only authorization for 


fiscal year 2008 regarding Task Three 


Procedure Reviews right now is just that 


fission product OTIB which I think is either 


53 or 54. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I believe it was 


54, and I requested that on the conference 


call and it was approved. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yes, and we are 


working on that but that’s it. That’s the 


only procedure that currently is active. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Yeah, and now that 


I think about it, I think we kicked around 


both eight and ten a little bit 


conversationally but didn’t take an action 


item. That may have been an oversight. I’ll 


certainly make a point to include that on our 


discussion agenda for the October meeting. 


MS. BEHLING: And I still owe you an updated 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

190 

table because there was actually five 


procedures that NIOSH has published that we 


have not reviewed, the revision or the new 


one. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Right, I don’t 


have that table yet, but --


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, I’m going to send you an 


update to that. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I won’t need it 


for another week, Kathy. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, 99.4, are you up to? 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


MR. GRIFFON: And I have NIOSH agrees; 


however, this has been changed. 


MS. BEHLING: That’s fine. That’s fine. 


MR. GRIFFON: And case 100 is an ORNL case, 


and I have see case -- same findings as 99 for 


those first three. 


MS. BEHLING: Right, and four, I reviewed 


NIOSH’s response, and I do agree with them. 


We were looking at the CATI issue here, and 


after looking at the response and looking back 


at the records and the CATI again, I agree 


with NIOSH’s response on this one. 


MR. GRIFFON: And that’s it. We got through 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

191 

the fifth set, very efficiently I might add. 


Why don’t we take a ten minute break and come 


back and go into the sixth set. At least 


let’s make a first run through the sixth set 


and assign actions because I’m assuming we 


will have some follow up on some of these. 


But let’s take a break now and get into that, 


ten minutes. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I’ll just stay on 


the line and be here when you get back. 


(Whereupon, a break was taken at 2:00 p.m. 


and the meeting resumed at 2:15 p.m.) 


SIXTH SET OF CASES MATRIX
 

MR. GRIFFON: We’re back online now. We’re 


starting the sixth set, and I think I heard a 


discussion that you guys both have that 


matrix? 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): I do, yes. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I do, too. 


Printed in hard form, amazing preparation. 


MS. BEHLING: Let me ask one question back 


on the other matrices. When we have, 


initially our finding is marked as under 


review or the case ranking, should we be going 


back and revising those under reviews to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

192 

something once we resolve those issues? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and I’ll work with you 

on that. 

MS. BEHLING: Okay, okay, just a side issue. 

We start with the sixth set now. 


John, I’m glad you’re on because these first 


couple cases are AWE cases and so I’m going to 


ask for your input. Case 101 we had no 


findings. That was a Bridgeport Brass case, 


and again, I believe we did look at the 


exposure matrix on this Bridgeport Brass case. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yes, we did. 


MS. BEHLING: And unless --


MR. GRIFFON: That was one of my questions. 


And you did look at the exposure matrix? 


Okay. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Oh, yes, 


absolutely. That was the heart of the dose 


reconstruction. It had bioassay data, 


fluorometric measurements for uranium, and 


they had film badge data that they used for 


workers. And from that they built an exposure 


matrix where they ^ off the 95th percentile 


values for the bioassay data and for the film 


badge data and used those as default values. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

193 

And as a result of that we thought that was an 


appropriate approach to take for this dose 


reconstruction. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, now we’re going to move 


on to a Harshaw case, which was our case 102. 


And as I said this was Harshaw, let me see, 


was this case compensated? It was 


compensated, but I believe you still had 


several findings here, John. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yeah, we had two 


findings. As indicated in the matrix the 


first one was my inability -- by the way, this 


case was based on actual film badge data. 


There is an exposure matrix, Harshaw. Harshaw 


does have an exposure matrix; however, in this 


particular case there was real film badge data 


and also bioassay data. And there was also 


air sampling data. Now bottom line is the 


first finding is when I tried to use the data, 


the bioassay data, to reconstruct to check the 


numbers for intake and doses, I have to admit 


I had trouble doing it. I wasn’t really able 


to do it. Usually I’m able to do it, but not 


in this case. And I could see that there was 


a response here. Perhaps NIOSH could explain 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

194 

the response a little bit to us. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I’ll give it a try and 


then Scott can correct anything I say that’s 


incorrect. 


I believe what happened in this case 


is that the individual data points for the 


bioassay were not all weighted the same in the 


ultimate analysis that was done that resulted 


in the dose calculation. They essentially 


under-weighted some of the later lower numbers 


so that the excretion curve matched the data 


data. So it was a fitting technique that the 


dosimetrist used in order to get the excretion 


curve to match the data. 


So that’s why it wouldn’t be a 


straightforward, and chances are, John, I 


would not be able to reproduce this myself if 


I were running IMBA because I don’t do it that 


often. But the internal dosimetrist at ORAU 


who work on this all the time are a lot more 


facile with that program than I am, and they 


were able to get a better fit for the data by 


making an adjustment on the weighting that’s 


provided for each of the data points. So that 


would explain that difference there. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

195 

MR. GRIFFON: But here’s an example once 


again of why wasn’t that, when you’re doing a 


unique fit like that, why wasn’t that input 


file retained and saved as part of the record? 


I would think that should be. 


MR. SIEBERT: And we agree that probably 


should have been part of that. 


MS. BEHLING: Can I ask a question here 


about your fitting technique? Do you have 


something -- I’ve probably asked this before, 


and I know it’s very difficult to do, but do 


you have guidance for the dose reconstructors 


as to try this approach first for your fitting 


technique. Change your solubility, look at 


your input dates, your potential intake dates. 


Do you have any guidance to the dose 


reconstructors? Are they just skilled enough 


at this point that they look at the data, and 


based on looking at that data they can 


determine what needs to be tweaked? 


MR. GRIFFON: It is an art more than a 

science. 

MR. SIEBERT: There’s general information in 

OTIB-060 which is the internal dose 


reconstruction OTIB. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

196 

MS. BEHLING: Right, that’s a new, fairly 


new. 


MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, that replaced the old 


procedure that was out there. And some of 


that generic-type information is in there, but 


as I said, when you start getting to fitting 


actual data, and you can’t just use something 


that is generic. It doesn’t really fit that 


well. 


At that point really you are just 


giving it professional judgment in where you 


start to tweak. The individual who did the 


case that we’re talking about is one of the 


more accomplished dosimetrists so they would 


feel more comfortable doing some of these 


tweaks. And I’m actually the one who went to 


recreate what he did. And I got very --


John, don’t feel bad about not being 


able to recreate that. It took me some work 


to recreate it as well, but I found a scenario 


that’s very close to it which is also 


reasonable. 


MS. BEHLING: And I guess as Mark has 


indicated, this is where it would be so 


helpful when we have to go back to these or 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 -- 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

197 

when this becomes a case that’s being audited. 


It really eliminates a lot of questions that 


we might have if we could just have a few of 


these types of files. 


MR. GRIFFON: Well, then I guess the other 


question, there is nothing procedurally that 


tells the dose reconstructor what files should 


be submitted as part of the case file or are 


there? There might be. I don’t know. 


MR. SIEBERT: I don’t believe it’s 

specified. 

MR. GRIFFON: I mean, we know obviously the 

final run that you’re going to use to support 


your dose estimate would be submitted, but --


MR. SIEBERT: But the actual dose estimation 


run was in there. The fitting run wasn’t 


which --


MR. GRIFFON: And I’m reflecting back to the 


one we discussed this morning, too, so I think 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we’ll have a 


conversation about that. I think there’s 


somewhere between saving everything you tried 


and what would be appropriate to have and just 


only saving the bare minimum. So somewhere in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

198 

there. 

MS. MUNN (by Telephone): So, Stu, you’re 

going to talk to SC&A? 

MR. HINNEFELD: ORAU. 

MS. MUNN (by Telephone): ORAU. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I’m going to talk to ORAU. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): To agree on where 


that fine line is, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we’re going to get 


some ideas I think, and then we’ll have it 


available for conversation later on on what 


kinds of things --


MR. GRIFFON: This is more of a general 


issue than anything on this particular case. 


And I think it relates to --


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Do you track it 


here though? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, dose reconstruction file 


records retention, I guess would be the... 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Well, that isn’t 


as specific as I would have stated it, but 


yes, okay. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, John, do you want to go 


on to --


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Okay, I just 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

199 

wanted to make sure everybody was through. 


MS. BEHLING: Go ahead. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): The second one, 


102.2, the concern that I expressed here was 


Harshaw, as you probably know, has a lot of 


radium and thorium and other daughter products 


from the uranium ore, the processing. And I 


was surprised that there was no analysis of 


the raffinates as part of the analysis. 


But you may know by NIOSH’s response 


they correctly state that, well, listen, since 


we compensated this person, there really was 


no need to go to that extent, and I agree. In 


other words, quite frankly, if I had the 


presence of mind, I would realize that and it 


was not necessary to analyze the raffinate 


portion of the dose since he was already 


compensated from the analysis that was done. 


MR. GRIFFON: Here’s my question of the 


mini-site profile thing, and I think we 


addressed it this morning, that we may have to 


pick a separate case or decide to deal with a 


Harshaw site profile review because, you know, 


the reason to some extent for picking this 


case was that we haven’t picked one from this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

200 

site. 


That was some of the rationale that we 


use on some of the smaller sites. And now for 


this particular case it wouldn’t have an 


effect, but on other Harshaw cases it may. So 


we would like to see how it was treated. You 


know, this case won’t get us there, but we 


want to review that. So the question came up 


this morning is how do we make sure we review 


that. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Mark, I read 


through the site profile and the exposure 


matrix for Harshaw, and it’s fairly elaborate. 


And you’re correct. In this particular case 


there was no reason for us to do what you 


would call a mini-review. There may be other 


cases coming down the pipeline where that 


would occur or, of course, we could actually 


perform a review of it if so desired. 


MR. GRIFFON: Well, I think we made a 


recommendation this morning when the first 


Harshaw case came up that we should select 


another Harshaw case. Because the first 


Harshaw case actually fell in with the SEC 


time period so we didn’t have to go much 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

201 

further on that one. And this one’s over 50 


percent, so I think we either need, the 


recommendation was to either to pick another 


Harshaw case or to assign the review of the 


site profile to SC&A. 


So I think we may, I’ll bring that to 


the October meeting as a possible subcommittee 


motion, and then we can possibly bring it to 


the full Board. But that’s sort of where we 


left it this morning. I don’t think you were 


on for that part. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yeah, I missed 


that. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think you missed that. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): So did I. I would 


think the most efficient and effective way to 


address that would be to choose a case that 


wasn’t compensated. 


MR. GRIFFON: And we should keep this in 


mind, too, Wanda, when we do our overall case 


selection because a lot of times we look and 


say, we go down our list and say, oh, we 


haven’t done that site before. But if we 


haven’t done that site, and it’s an 


overestimating approach or something like 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

202 

that, then we do this review, and we still 


haven’t done that site. You know what I mean? 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): It would be very 


nice if you were keeping -- as Chair I know 


you love to do these things anyway -- keep up 


a specific list of less than generic questions 


that we should consider the next time we do 


case reviews. 


MR. GRIFFON: I will try, and between this 


and the Procedures group, I think we’ll get 


there. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, if we move on to case 


103. This was Santa Susanna or ETEC or I 


guess it has several names. I identified it 


as a Santa Susanna case where they did a 


partial dose reconstruction and it was 


compensated. 


And, John, do you want to --


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yeah, let me give 


a quick overview. 


It’s a site that did a lot of things. 


It had reactors, and it had rocket tests, and 


it did all sorts of experimental work. So it 


was a fairly complex site. There is no 


exposure matrix on the NIOSH website as of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

203 

this date for Santa Susanna. 


MR. SIEBERT: I’m sure there is. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, there is. 


MR. GRIFFON: There is now. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): There is now? 


Okay. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Maybe not when this was 


done. I don’t know. 


MR. SIEBERT: It was released I think about 


four-to-six months after this case was done. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Okay. In this 


case though the worker was monitored for 


external exposure; and therefore, the external 


doses were based on his external record, and 


we have no comments on that. But he did not 


have any bioassay data. And in this case what 


was done was they used OTIB-018, which is one 


of the procedures that I think are in the 


queue for review during our Procedure meeting. 


Wanda, are we going to be meeting on 


that Tuesday morning? On October, what’s 


that, October 2nd? 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): We are indeed, and 


I expect it will be most of the day. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): And I think that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

204 

might be the first one on the agenda. So I 


would say to the folks one of our concerns is 


with the, what we call the OTIB-018-slashOTIB-033 approach to dose reconstruction for 


internal emitters. And you could see there’s 


-- the degree to which you want to go into it 


now or hold off on this as more of a generic 


item. That’s certainly up to you folks. 


MR. GRIFFON: We can probably hold off on 

it. 

MS. BEHLING: If I can just ask a few 

questions of NIOSH on this particular issue. 


The OTIB-018 -- and the reason I’m asking this 


question is we’re saying -- it’s sort of 


strange on this particular case. On one 


finding we’re saying this may be too 


conservative, too conservative to use for a 


compensable case. On the other hand we’re 


saying you really need to -- in our mind when 


you look at this OTIB-018 procedure, this is 


looking at air monitoring programs at the 


various facilities. 


And just based on what we’ve been 


seeing so far in our site profile reviews, 


we’re often questioning how, is the air 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

205 

monitoring program at these various sites 


adequate enough and is there enough BZA 


samples being done as opposed to general air 


sampling that you can really say with 


confidence, yes, we can look at this site and 


apply OTIB-018 to it. 


I don’t believe that OTIB-018 has any 


kind of a listing of these are the facilities 


that it can apply to. Because there was a 


NUMEC study that was done. It was like a two 


year study that they compared BZA samples to 


general air samples, and there was quite a bit 


of difference. And so you really do have to 


question each individual facility and whether 


their air monitoring program is adequate. And 


so that’s one aspect of the OTIB-018. 


But I see in your response here that 


you said that OTIB-018 was not necessarily 


supposed to represent an overestimating 


procedure. And I guess I’m still a little 


confused because at one of the last meetings 


it seemed very obvious to me, in fact, this 


was done in this particular case, when you 


combine OTIB-018, which is this air monitoring 


procedure, with OTIB-033, 33 was written as a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

206 

separate procedure. 


And it seems as if once you apply a 


graded approach that’s described in OTIB-033, 


I got the sense that you could compensate with 


the combination of those two procedures. 


However, Liz corrected me stating that’s not 


the case. But right here is an example of a 


case where that was done, and so --


MR. GRIFFON: And so this case was 

compensated. 

MS. BEHLING: This case was compensated. It 

was compensated by using OTIB-018 with a 


combination of 33 using a graded approach. 


And I believe Liz did also stipulate that 


early on they did use it for compensating, but 


they’re not doing that any more. So I was 


just trying to get a more clear understanding 


of TIB-018, TIB-033, how ORAU and NIOSH use 


this especially in light of your response to 


103.1. 


MS. BRACKETT (by Telephone): Just to 


respond on this particular issue of this 


response because I wrote this response. I’m 


not saying that it’s not an overestimate. The 


point was it’s not necessarily an overestimate 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

207 

for all cases. It’s not an all encompassing 


overestimate. It has limitations, and those 


are detailed in the OTIB as part of what 


potential for exposure a person could have and 


still have this be applicable to. That was 


the only point I meant there. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay. Would you -- and again, 


I’m just trying to get an understanding. 


Would you use, would you ever use just OTIB018 to compensate or don’t you try to even 


make that distinction? 


MS. BRACKETT (by Telephone): It should not 


be used for compensable cases. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay. And if it’s coupled 


with OTIB-033, it still should not be used for 


compensable cases? 


MS. BRACKETT (by Telephone): No, it’s not 


intended, it’s still intended as an 


overestimate for the cases to which it 


applies. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Has that always been the 


case, Liz? 


MS. BRACKETT (by Telephone): No. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so that has not always 


been the case. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

208 

MR. GRIFFON: This may be similar to TIB-004 


where it was used --


MR. SIEBERT: It’s the same idea as TIB-004 


where it was older cases where we were prior 


to a TBD release. 


MS. BEHLING: I guess it’s just sometimes 


difficult for us to keep up with what is being 


compensated and what isn’t. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): By the way, Liz, 


that statement you just made is very important 


for the conversation we’re going to have I 


guess on October 2nd . I did not realize that. 


I interpreted OTIB-018-slash-OTIB-033 as the 


tool to use for either compensation or denial 


as your best effort at trying to do a 


realistic internal dose assessment when you 


don’t have bioassay or air sampling data. And 


your basically using the regulations, the MPCs 


and the time period as the basis. But that 


may go along way toward solving our concerns. 


But I’m not sure because I know there 


is some aspects to the use of MPCs and the air 


sampling data that says that you have control 


over the airborne dust loadings. And I think 


that discussion is going to be interesting, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

209 

and I’m looking forward to it on the 2nd . 


MS. BEHLING: Also, it just seemed logical 


to me the fact that you would generate a 


second OTIB, OTIB-033, to do this graded 


approach. It seemed if you weren’t going to 


compensate, you would have put OTIB-018 and 33 


it would be one procedure. 


It just seemed more logical to me that 


the reason OTIB-033 was designed was so that 


it could be used for compensation. And 


apparently, that was done because, in fact, we 


have quite a few cases where they were 


compensated using that approach. But, okay, I 


think you’ve answered the question. 


MR. GRIFFON: So the larger discussion will 


occur in the other meeting on October 2nd I 


guess. 


Okay, 104. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Do you want me to 


grab this, Kathy? 


MS. BEHLING: Yes, go ahead. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yeah, 104 is a 


case with a worker at Superior Steel. There 


is an exposure matrix. Superior Steel 


basically rolled uranium and I believe thorium 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

210 

also -- I’m not sure -- slabs of steel. It’s 


a metalworking facility. And there are two 


comments here that have to do with dose, the 


first one has to do with dose conversion 


factors. 


In effect what was done at the site 


was here’s a person working at the site where 


he’s exposed to airborne radioactivity and 


also deposited radioactivity on surfaces. And 


what was used was the exposure rates measured 


at Simonds Saw for that pathway. And we think 


that’s a very conservative way to do it. 


Simonds Saw did have very high levels of 


airborne and deposited activity. 


My observation was that they used, 


that once you have the airborne, let’s say, 


dose in MR per hour, let’s say, Roentgens, MR 


per hour, that you convert that to the organ 


dose by using the dose conversion factors in 


Appendix B to OCAS-1. I was critical here 


saying that, well, it looks like that they 


used the isotropic dose conversion factor. 


And in fact, your comment, when I read your 


comment, I think I agree. 


Kathy, it looks like the measurements 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

211 

that were made here were from film badges 


hanging from the rafters --


MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): -- which is like 


a point in space as opposed to worn on a 


person’s body. So I think the iso dose 


conversion factors are the right ones to use, 


and I was incorrect. 


MS. BEHLING: That’s correct. We conceded 


that issue in the past, so yeah. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Okay, so we 


withdraw this comment. They are correct. We 


were wrong. 


Now the second one, 104.2, I’m not 


sure. I have to tell you I’m at a loss. As a 


separate issue related to dose, on ambient 


dose -- help me out a bit here. I’m not quite 


sure what this refers to. 


MS. BEHLING: Reviewer questions selection 


of DCF based on ambient dose equivalent. This 


also may be an isotropic issue which we have 


also conceded. Because Stu had indicated that 


they often hung from, not a post, but from 


something in the environment. And so the --


MR. GRIFFON: Well, I don’t think you can 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

212 

both concede there because NIOSH is conceding 


here, too, if I read their response correctly. 


Because of the small, favorable impact, OCAS 


proposes no action. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Give me one 


second. Let me open up the book, and it might 


help a bit. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I believe this has to do 


with the rem to organ dose DCF versus the 


exposure to organ dose DCF. I believe that’s 


the origin of --


MS. BEHLING: Yes, it’s not the isotropic. 


It has to do with a DCF, whether you’re 


selecting HP-10 or you’re selecting exposure. 


So you can concede. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


MR. GRIFFON: And, I mean, if I’m reading 


this correct, I haven’t looked at this closely 


enough to know, or it’s been awhile, but I’m 


assuming that the dose conversion factors that 


were used versus the one that should have been 


used were very, not very far off and wouldn’t 


have affected the overall dose very much. Is 


that what you’re saying, Stu? 


MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t have them with me. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

213 

DR. MAURO (by Telephone): I think I see. 


I’m looking at the book right now, and it has 


to do with whether or not the readings that 


were your starting point for determining the 


dose, were they HP-10s or were they ambient 


dose? Because which, in other words, when 


selecting your dose conversion factor out of 


Appendix B, you either use ambient dose versus 


HP-10 dose. And I guess the comment was that 


we weren’t quite sure how that all worked. 


It sounds like you’ve got the echo 


going again. Hello? 


MS. BEHLING: We’re still here. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Okay, I heard all 


sorts of echoes and funny noises. Am I okay 


again? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, you’re okay. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): I don’t know if 


you heard my question. 


MS. BEHLING: We did. We’re just waiting 


for Stu to concede. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, my understanding is 


that the finding gets to whether you use the 


exposure to organ dose or rem to organ dose in 


the dose conversion factor. And we believe 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

214 

that your comment is correct, your finding is 


correct, but it’s a nominal change in the 


outcome. 


MS. BEHLING: Right. 


MR. GRIFFON: So it wouldn’t really affect 


this case. So NIOSH agrees but no action 


required really is the net result as far as 


the action column goes. 


MS. BEHLING: And I guess for the remainder 


of these findings NIOSH did not have a 


response yet? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, anything that’s blank 


on initial response may be --


MR. GRIFFON: Let’s just humor me here if we 


can go down them real quickly. One-o-four 


point three I think we need a response on, but 


104.4, five and six seem to be some of these 


generic issues that are coming up again and 


again, the ingestion model, resuspension. 


So I think we know what these are 


going to turn into. They’re going to be back 


to that generic response. And 104.3 I think 


we need. That seems more specific. This is a 


question of how you came up with your dose 


estimates from the slabs. But we’ve run 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

215 

across that before, too, I think. So I don’t 


know. 


One-o-four point seven we certainly 


need a specific response on, the transuranic 


question, and that’s it. So I guess we’re on 


to 105. 


MS. BEHLING: One-o-five, and I’m going to, 


Doug, I think did this case, and so maybe I’ll 


let him go through some of these findings. 


MR. FARVER: One-o-five point one, 


improperly converted photon doses 


inappropriate DCF ranges. And this has to do 


with the triangular distribution ranges 


max/mins like we’ve been talking about. And 


this has all been corrected, I believe, in the 


newer workbooks. 


MS. BEHLING: The only note that I wrote 


down here is I see in NIOSH’s response that 


you did go ahead and make a correction using 


the AP geometries, but then you also went on 


and made corrections to X-ray and shallow 


doses. And we really didn’t contest the X-ray 


or shallow dose component of this. And I was 


just curious as to what --


MR. GRIFFON: Well, I think this is a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

216 

question of falling under a PER, and if you’re 


going to do it, you re-do the whole case. 


MR. HINNEFELD: So everything was being 


done. All these changes were being 


incorporated in with the PER evaluation that’s 


laid out here. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, that explains it. 


MR. FARVER: One-o-five point two, similar, 


improperly converted missed photon doses and 


DCF ranges. That’s the same thing with the 


workbook. 


One-o-five point three, this is the 


LOD over two, failure to account for missed 


photon dose, and once again this has been 


addressed and it’s been corrected in the newer 


workbook. 


One-o-five point four, same thing for 


neutron DCFs, should have been corrected. 


One-o-five point five, occupational 


medical dose improperly converted to organ 


dose. 


MR. GRIFFON: Wait, 105.4, that was revised, 


right? I just want to make my notes complete 


here. 


MR. FARVER: It’s been changed in the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

217 

workbook. 

MR. GRIFFON: And the workbook has been 

revised. 

MS. BEHLING: Yes, rev. 1, rev. 1 of that 

EDCW. 

MR. FARVER: I believe I saw a new workbook 


as well. 


Medical dose, it looks like they chose 


off the wrong table or chose the wrong organ, 


chose for lungs instead of esophagus. 


MS. BEHLING: I see no NIOSH response. 


MR. GRIFFON: We don’t have a NIOSH response 


on that. 


MR. FARVER: It just looks like they chose 


the wrong value. 


One-o-five point six, did not account 


for internal doses from fission products. 


MS. BEHLING: This is the same fission 


product thing. 


MR. FARVER: Is this the same one from 


before? 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. Or is it? 


MR. GRIFFON: It’s slightly different. 


MR. SIEBERT: It’s slightly different. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I thought it was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 -- 

25 

218 

slightly different. Maybe we can hear NIOSH’s 


response on this. We did recalculate it if I 


look right here, yeah. 


MS. BEHLING: Even the approach, I believe 


that we, that you’re using was improperly used 


this time because you should have used 


Ruthenium-106. Is that correct? 


MR. FARVER: For both of them, I believe. 


It was a twin cancer, two cancers. And I 


believe it should have been used on both 


organs, and I think that’s what you’re saying 


here. You went back and recalculated it for 


the skin. 


MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, the skin was higher, 


actually the ^ wasn’t, but once again, you can 


only really be exposed to one radionuclide so 


you want to use one or the other. 


MR. FARVER: I think that was more of a 


consistency. And that’s it for 105. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I think what the summary of 


our response here is that we agree that --


MR. SIEBERT: We should have used Ru-106. 


MR. HINNEFELD: -- right. But the impact is 


MR. GRIFFON: Is marginal, right. And on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

219 

105, because I have a couple notes asking 


what, was this a close POC --


Kathy, do you know the POC on that one 


offhand, 105? Was that close to --


MR. FARVER: Thirty-five point nine eight. 


MR. GRIFFON: So it was a little lower. 


MR. HINNEFELD: That’s pretty far to go, 


yeah. 


MR. GRIFFON: So on, I don’t expect, but I 


would think you might want to review NIOSH’s 


response on that one. Have you had a chance 


to digest that? Or are you satisfied with 


that? 

MS. BEHLING: On which? 

MR. GRIFFON: One-o-five point, the last 

one, 105.6. 

MR. HINNEFELD: That’s, well, our response 


that we --


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we see your response, 


yeah. 


MR. SIEBERT: We agree there’s no impact. 


MR. GRIFFON: Although they say they did not 


agree with the vocal cord, I mean, you’re okay 


with signing off on this or you want time to ­

- I’m just asking. It seems okay to me, but I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

220 

just didn’t know if you want to --


MS. BEHLING: And this is also an issue that 


you’re going to be addressing, this fission 


product issue as we had talked about, is going 


to be something that’s going to be revisited 


anyway with a tool and additional workbook, 


but I don’t know if you have -- I guess I’m a 


little confused. I thought that our comment 


had to do with that they did not use the 


Ruthenium-106 or was that incorrect? Am I 


wrong? 


MR. GRIFFON: I think maybe look at this 


response a little closer and come back because 


you can’t do it real time. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, if we want to go on to 


106. This again is a Savannah River site 


case, and let me just look at some of the up 


front information. It was a best estimate. 


It was compensated, and I think we’re going to 


see a lot of repeats on these findings so we 


can get through them quickly. But 106.1, 


again, improperly converted recorded photon 


dose because of this DCF issue which we’ve 


beaten to death. 


One-o-six point two, same thing, DCF 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

221 

issue applies to both recorded and missed 


photons. And this discusses the missed photon 


dose. 


One-o-six point three, again, this is 


the less than LOD over two value. And again, 


SC&A is under the impression that we should 


continue when we see these findings to 


identify them even though these have been 


discussed. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yes. And we don’t have to 


spend a lot of time with them, but we can just 


go through them once and we’re off the --


MS. BEHLING: Okay. And the same thing 


with, you know, I hear a lot, what kind of an 


impact did that finding have. And even though 


we recognize up front a lot of times that it’s 


going to have a very marginal impact, we’re 


under the impression we should still be 


identifying this because there may be 


procedural issues or something along those 


lines. So it’s not like we’re trying to 


nitpick. We’re just trying to look at each 


and every one of the findings. 


One-o-six point four, let’s see, this 


is a fission product again. See here. Is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

222 

this different? Because I see here did not 


properly account for all internal doses from 


fission products. 


MR. FARVER: Oh, this is where he had a 


couple cesium whole body counts, and they 


exceeded the fallout levels that were 


documented in the TBD. And they did not 


account for those. 


MR. GRIFFON: This is a compensable case. 


It’s a compensable case. That was it. It’s 


the phrase down there about four paragraphs 


down. 


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, at the end. Okay, so 


we’re good with that. 


MR. GRIFFON: We’re on 107.1. 


Wanda, are you out there? 


 (no response) 


MR. GRIFFON: Wanda? 


 (no response) 


MR. GRIFFON: John? 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yes, I’m still 


here. 


MR. GRIFFON: Wanda, are you there? 


 (no response) 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, 107.1. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

223 

MS. BEHLING: Again, this is another 


Savannah River site case. Just to give you, 


this was a best estimate, and this case was 


not compensated. This was denied. We’re 


going to see the same things because in all of 


these they’re using these older workbooks, 


either the version 0.015 or 0.021. It’s not 


until 1.0 that these have been corrected. So 


the first two are the recorded missed photon 


dose DCF issues, and 107.3 is the less than 


LOD over two. 


One-o-seven point four, okay, reviewer 


believes NIOSH assumptions regarding internal 


dose from uranium exposure are neither 


scientifically sound nor claimant favorable. 


Maybe NIOSH could explain their response, and 


then we can --


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, over a monitoring 


period, I mean, I think the nature of the 


finding was how do you know that this was a 


chronic intake? This looks consistent with an 


acute intake quite a lot earlier than this. 


And so our response is we believe it’s chronic 


just based on the relative results. I mean, 


they’re both relatively low. I think the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

224 

second one’s higher than the first one. I’m 


not sure either one’s above LOD over two 


level, and that they’re spaced about a year 


apart which is a routine, what you’d expect 


for a routine sampling. So, but then we did 


say, okay, if we did do an acute, and that 


there would be very little change in the dose 


between an acute way back here that then 


resulted in this bioassay data, and a chronic 


over the period of time that resulted in the 


two bioassays. So that’s the point. There’s 


almost no difference in whether it was an 


early acute or a chronic over the time of 


employment. And that based on, in my mind 


really, the fact that the samples were about a 


year apart, to me sounds like a routine 


sampling. 

MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Can anyone hear 

me? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Well, I’m sorry. 

I thought I was going to do something really 


clever and get on my wireless and stick my 


Tooth in my ear so that I could talk and move 


at the same time. But apparently I just, you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

225 

couldn’t hear me, and in trying to get you to 


hear me, I cut myself off. So I’m not sure 


where we are now. You were asking me a 


question, and I wasn’t answering because I was 


trying to answer and nothing was happening. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I was asking if you were on 


your surfboard. But we’re on case 107 now, 


107.4, Wanda. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Boy, that was 


fast. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we ran through some. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I left off 106 


somewhere, where we were talking about more of 


the same on the DCF. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we’re running into a lot 


of the same kind of findings so we’re able to 


go through them fairly quickly. 


DR. BRANCHE: You miss five minutes, you 


miss your whole life. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Yeah, I think 


that’s it, so 107. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 107.4 specifically. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Got it. Sorry to 


interrupt, Stu. Thank you. 


MS. BEHLING: I think what Stu was saying 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

226 

sounds reasonable, but maybe we can just look 


at this and I don’t know if there’s any --


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it seems --

MS. BEHLING: -- we can run these by 

ourselves. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- we’ve been doing this acute 

and chronic before, but you can look at it for 


this case. 


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, we’ll look at it again. 


One-o-seven point five, dose data 


entered into IREP incorrectly. And this is 


just a matter of it should have been entered 


electrons greater than 15 keV, and I believe 


it was entered as electrons less than 15 keV. 


MR. GRIFFON: And the net result would have 


been lowering the POC, so it’s not an issue, 


but you’re agreeing with the point. 


MS. BEHLING: One-o-seven point six, review 


questions why Plutonium-238 was not included 


in the calculation of the environmental 


internal doses. I see NIOSH’s response was 


that it was included in with the occupational 


dose which, if it was, then I concede this 


issue, and I’m sure it was, but I just want to 


go back and look at that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

227 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the thought process 


here is that if the person has a monitoring 


record for Plutonium-238, that bioassay 


monitoring would show all of his intake 


whether he received it from environmental 


emissions or from ^, and it would be 


incorporated in. 


MS. BEHLING: Sure, and I agree with that. 


I guess I just didn’t realize, and sometimes 


when you combine these entries into IREP, you 


have to tease everything out, and I just may 


have missed that one. 


MR. GRIFFON: What was -- well, what was the 


organ of interest for this case? I guess I 


was surprised to see it would have resulted in 


less than one millirem for these environmental 


doses. It could have been, it depends on the 


organ. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, to any metabolic organ 


or non-metabolic. 


MS. BEHLING: Red bone marrow and prostate. 


MR. HINNEFELD: It was probably the 


prostate. 


MR. SIEBERT: Well, remember, you’re talking 


only ’77 through ’81 that you would be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

228 

assigning environmental. 


MR. GRIFFON: Four years of environmental? 


MR. SIEBERT: Four years of environmental. 


And I don’t believe --


MR. GRIFFON: Per year they would have been 


below one millirem? 


MR. SIEBERT: They would have been very 


small, and I believe the cancer diagnosis was 


relatively soon after that, so I’m not 


surprised it was less than one. I did the 


calculations so I can tell you they’re 


obviously correct. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): And one millirem 


isn’t likely to change it. 


MR. GRIFFON: Well, that’s reassuring. I 


mean, I guess it’s also part of the 


environmental workbook review. We’re 


reviewing that site profile so, you know, it 


comes up in the environmental side of our 


review. So I’m not going to harp on it here. 


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, and in fact, the 


environmental workbook that you’re using is 


also a very nice workbook and is, I think, 


very helpful to the dose reconstructors. It 


seems to be an accurate, good workbook. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

229 

MR. GRIFFON: So you’re going to --


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, I’m going to look at 


that one one more time. 


One-o-eight, DR did not include 1945 


recorded dose of 20 millirem. It shows you 


how closely we look at this data. 


MR. FARVER: I think the point here is that 


there was no 1945 dose in the IREP. It looks 


like NIOSH’s response is it was in the 


workbook but was kicked out because it was, 


the uncertainty? Dosimeter error was out of 


range. 


MR. SIEBERT: Right. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Can you elaborate on that a 


little bit? 


MR. SIEBERT: I’m not necessarily the best 


person to do that, and unfortunately, there’s 


no better person on the phone. 


The way the Monte Carlo calculations 


are worked with the OTIB-012 is if your errors 


are outside of a range, such as I think it’s 


less than five percent or outside 130 percent, 


something like that, we have to do additional 


calculations to make sure. You get an error 


message, and you have to do additional 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

230 

calculations to get it within the appropriate 


range. In this case the ’45 fell outside the 


range, and --


MR. FARVER: How would you identify what 


that error range is for that dosimeter? Based 


on the dosimeter? 


MR. SIEBERT: It’s based on the dosimeters 


for that year and, yeah, it’s rolled up 


together. It’s all information that’s in the 


tool, and the external dosimetry principal 


external dosimetrist is really going to be the 


better person to answer on that. 


MR. GRIFFON: I think we should look at that 


closer, just as a, not so much this 20 


millirem but how that tool works and what it’s 


doing. 


MS. BEHLING: And I have looked at that tool 


to some extent, and actually what’s nice about 


that tool is it makes things a little bit 


faster for the dose reconstructor because they 


don’t have to run the Monte Carlo each and 


every time because they’ve gone into OTIB-012, 


and they’ve run a range or an uncertainty, a 


five percent uncertainty or they’ve done, as 


he said, 130 percent uncertainty. And then 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

231 

you can select from a table as opposed to 


having the run the Monte Carlo. But this 


error band for this dosimeter went outside 


that range I believe is what you’re saying. 


Okay, that makes sense. 


MR. GRIFFON: And you’ve reviewed TIB-012 


and the workbook. 


MS. BEHLING: Yes, yes. 


MR. GRIFFON: Have we discussed that in the 


Procedures review? 


MS. BEHLING: I don’t know. 


John, do you know if OTIB-012 is in 


Supplement 3? 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): I’m sorry, could 


you repeat the question? 


MS. BEHLING: OTIB-012, I know that we 


looked at the OTIB-012 workbook along with the 


procedure, and I don’t think we’ve discussed 


that yet. 


And Wanda, you can help us out here, 


too, because, but I believe that might be 


either in Supplement, probably in Supplement 


3. 


DR. MAURO (by Telephone): Yeah, we have not 


reached that point in the Procedure reviews, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

232 

no. 


MS. BEHLING: But we have reviewed these --


MR. GRIFFON: So I’m going to defer this 


because I don’t think 20 millirem is worth us, 


for the DR review here, I’m going to defer the 


generic question about the TIB-012 workbook to 


the Procedures review work. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I think that’s 


appropriate. 


MS. BEHLING: I was going to say let’s make 


sure Wanda’s hearing this. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): You’re right. 


Twenty millirem is -- let’s get realistic. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the other point is 


this a compensable claim, isn’t it? 


MS. BEHLING: Is it? 


MR. HINNEFELD: What number are we on? 


MS. BEHLING: One-o-eight. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it’s a compensable 


claim so we’re going to have to do a lot more 


work to figure that 20 millirem in. It’s 


already compensable. 


MR. GRIFFON: We’re not going to bother this 


case. 


MR. FARVER: I guess the concern was if 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

233 

you’re basically throwing out the 1945 


dosimeter data because it’s all out of range 


or is it just this dosimeter result is, the 


uncertainty is very high. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the uncertainty that 


was available for ’45 probably because there 


were only a few readings I would guess. I 


don’t know. 


MR. SIEBERT: I think there was only one. 


MR. HINNEFELD: It makes it outside the 


range for this tool where you don’t have to 


run Monte Carlos. 


MR. FARVER: So essentially you’ll be 


pulling out all the 1945, whether it be one or 


two dosimeters or --


MR. SIEBERT: We’d be throwing out all the 


measured 1945. All the missed was --


MR. FARVER: Right, I’m just saying all the 


measured would have --


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it kicked out in this 


case because the uncertainty has to be within 


a certain range in order to use this shortcut. 


Since we can’t use that shortcut, we can put 


it back in --


MR. GRIFFON: But you don’t need to for this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

234 

case. 


MR. HINNEFELD: But we don’t need to. 


MR. FARVER: But in this case you wouldn’t 


need to. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Right, right. But there are 


methods to put that dose back in. 


MS. BEHLING: On to 109, no findings. 


MR. FARVER: One-ten point one, that is DR 


does not properly account for all the missed 


photon dose and this has to do with blanks and 


zeros and the way the data is entered into the 


workbook. 


MR. GRIFFON: What site is this? I’m sorry. 


MR. FARVER: This is --


MS. BEHLING: Hanford. 


MR. FARVER: Sometimes I have seen zeros 


entered, and it works fine. Sometimes there’s 


blanks entered, as in this case, and it does 


not work fine. It looks like a data entry 


inconsistency. 


MR. GRIFFON: And we don’t know in this case 


what was in the hard copy record. I mean were 


they blanks or --


MR. FARVER: I think they were blanks, but 


at that time I thought blanks could be zeros. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

235 

In other words it could still be monitored 


because it gives a date, but it does not give 


a result in there. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I believe in our response we 


agreed with the finding, don’t we? Aren’t we 


on 110.1? 


MR. FARVER: Yes. 


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, you agree. 


MR. GRIFFON: This whole thing is being 


redone because it’s Super S anyway. 


MR. HINNEFELD: It’s Super S so it’s going 


to be reworked. 


MR. GRIFFON: So you’re going to rework this 


in accordance with the newest, latest 


procedures of everything else, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


MR. FARVER: So I think that’s probably been 


addressed and corrected or is it in process of 


being corrected? 


MR. HINNEFELD: It will be corrected when 


the case, the case is going to have to be 


reworked. And so it will be corrected at that 


time. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I have to ask this 


question again because every time we go into 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

236 

this zero badge reading thing I get back again 


to this question of how frequently these badge 


readings are because if we’re talking about 


monthly or bimonthly badge readings, we can 


expect two or three of those a year because 


they’re not there. They’re on vacation. 


And it’s never been clear to me 


whether the dose reconstructor knows when 


those vacation periods are and takes that into 


account or whether we just go ahead and assign 


the LOD over two because we decided we’re 


going to do that. Do we check? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, if we know. Sometimes 


you’ll see a record that’ll have a notation on 


it, vacation. Sometimes you’ll see that. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): But most of the 


time they just say zero, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Or blank. In those 


instances we generally consider a zero, that 


they were monitored and missed, and there was 


no result. Now --


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): So they get LOD 


over two. 


MR. HINNEFELD: -- so they have a couple 


weeks of vacation. So if they were changed 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

237 

weekly, and they have a couple or three weeks 


of vacation, you’ll have two or three episodes 


where that will happen theoretically where 


they weren’t there that week. And based on 


our interpretation you would record a zero for 


their badge that week. This is in a context, 


they’re going to have 49 other readings that 


year that are either going to be zeros and be 


included in the missed or will have a measured 


dose on it. So in light of 52 badge 


exchanges, the three extras, if there are 


three extras we put in there, you know, it 


just doesn’t matter that much I don’t think. 


MR. GRIFFON: That’s right, not a big thing. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): It’s always 


bothered me that the possibility of LOD over 


two being assigned when I know people are gone 


three or four weeks out of the year routinely 


during the larger portion of those. 


MR. FARVER: I think the point of this 


finding was it’s more of a consistency. Like 


sometimes the workbook would have zeros in it. 


Sometimes it’ll have blanks, but the records 


will all be blanks. I believe Hanford had 


blanks in their records. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

238 

MR. SIEBERT: It depends on the timeframe. 


MS. BEHLING: Exactly. 


MR. FARVER: Some of the dose reconstructors 


I believe or someone who was entering data put 


in zeros for the blanks. In this case they 


left the blanks. If there’s blanks here, then 


your algorithm won’t work correctly to sum the 


zeros. 


MR. HINNEFELD: So this is 110.1. And the 


finding really gets to is the data, it almost 


sounds like it’s the data entry, because the 


data is entered by Data Entry. 


MR. FARVER: Yes, I don’t know who put the 


zeros in instead of blanks. 


MR. HINNEFELD: The dose reconstructors 


don’t normally populate those workbooks with 


the data, the original reads. Those are done 


by Data Entry people. And are their 


instructions clear about when is a blank a 


zero, and when is a blank a blank. Is that 


it? 


MR. FARVER: Yes. It’s a consistency. Has 


it been consistent throughout. 


MS. BEHLING: And as Doug indicated, I think 


early on in the Hanford records they indicated 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

239 

you can have a zero reading, but it may show 


up as a blank on the records. Now, what some 


of the dose reconstructors do, in fact, to 


highlight that zero in as opposed to the Data 


Entry people, they’ll put it in red to let us 


know that that was their entry as opposed to 


the data processors. 


MR. SIEBERT: And it is the dose 


reconstructor’s ultimate responsibility to 


make sure to validate what’s going in the 


tools. 


MS. BEHLING: Right. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Well, it certainly 


sounds conscientious to me to develop a 


practice of putting in red. That would be 


certainly would be helpful to SC&A, wouldn’t 


it? It would certainly be helpful to me if I 


were reviewing that work. 


MS. BEHLING: It is helpful, and some of the 


dose reconstructors do that. And I think in 


this particular case that’s, Doug is 


identifying the fact where there were blanks 


in the records. There were blanks in this 


workbook, and so we didn’t know how to 


interpret that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

240 

MR. FARVER: But they probably should have 


been zeros because you’re summing algorithm 


for summing zeros to calculate missed dose is 


not going to work correctly if there’s blanks. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Right. 


MR. FARVER: So you would either change your 


algorithm to include zeros and blanks. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): And so this one 


the ultimate, the bottom line here is this 


particular case is going to be reworked. 


MR. GRIFFON: Right, because of the Super S 


part. 


MR. HINNEFELD: But the second part of that 


now, the note I’m taking now is that we need 


to find out what kind of instruction is out 


there for various sites for this time. 


Whether the blank being on the record, when 


does a blank mean zero, and when does a blank 


mean blank? 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Right. 


MR. GRIFFON: And when does a blank mean 


something else, not recorded or whatever. 


I’ll put that down, too, your action for 


NIOSH. 


MR. FARVER: One-ten point two questions 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

241 

whether or not the DR properly accounted for 


missed neutron doses, and this goes back to 


where the worker worked. And in our, under 


our finding, we cite three instances. One 


refers back to the technical basis document 


saying that the 100 area and the 200 area and 


400 areas were areas where there could be 


neutrons. 


And then we also cite that he had 


plutonium urinalyses through his career which 


could also be another indicator of potential 


neutron exposure. And thirdly, there was a 


record, although it was withdrawn, a pass 


withdrawn two days later after it was issued 


for the 105 KE building, which was identified 


as a neutron area. 


So although any one of these three 


things would not be that significant, when you 


combine them, you say you might have to look 


at that and say, well, we might want to 


consider this. And I see NIOSH’s response, 


and, yeah, I guess all we were saying was I 


guess he could have been at different places 


and got neutron exposure. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): What was the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

242 

employment period for this employee? 


MR. FARVER: Let’s see, [Identifying 


information redacted]. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Okay, then he 


wouldn’t have had any, there wouldn’t have 


been any 400 area exposure for him then. It 


would have all been elsewhere. 


MR. FARVER: Okay. 


MR. GRIFFON: Did anyone, is this person 


alive or was it a survivor claim? Was there 


any information on the CATI as to where this 


person? 


MR. SIEBERT: I think this person passed 


away in [Identifying information redacted]. 


MR. FARVER: I don’t believe there’s much in 


the CATI. And I guess what we’re saying was 


it was a non-compensable claim. He was 


denied. You might want to look at this. 


There’s some indication that he may have been 


exposed. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, yeah, I mean, there 


are indications of passes into the reactor 


areas for a day or two or other areas for a 


day or two. He was in, apparently worked in 


the 200 area, REDOX and PUREX. PUREX 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

243 

certainly is --


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): What was this 


person’s job? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Boy, I don’t have a job 


title in front of me. 


Scott, do you have it up there? 


MR. SIEBERT: [Identifying information 

redacted]. 

MR. GRIFFON: Have to be careful with too 

many identifiers. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): No, [Identifying 


information redacted], well, that could mean a 


lot of things, couldn’t it, on that site. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I mean the PUREX, that would 


explain the bioassay. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Well, yeah. And 


the PUREX would be the heavy duty possibility 


I think. 


MR. HINNEFELD: So I don’t know. Looking at 


the entirety of his record and the weight of 


the evidence we felt like the indication of 


neutron was relatively small. There wasn’t 


much indication that there was much 


opportunity for neutrons based on the source. 


Now, I don’t necessarily say zero. We’re kind 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

244 

of stuck with, you know, we have a kind of 


limited range of options, I guess, available 


to us right now in terms of putting neutron on 


here. Give him a missed neutron for every 


month when it seems pretty clear and how you 


fractionate what fraction of his work time? 


Do you say, well, okay, during this time there 


seems to have been maybe a potential? 


MR. FARVER: Is there any coworker data? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, not --


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Coworker will say 


the same thing. 


MR. HINNEFELD: -- not divided to the extent 


that it would add to this. I mean, if you 


were going to have to do coworker by location 


then again you need to know the location and 


essentially how much time he was at the 


location. The coworker dataset, most of the 


coworker datasets are composites of everybody 


monitored, and they address the entire 


monitored population. 


So there is a, I mean, I’m not sure if 


there’s a coworker set for ^ at Hanford or 


not, but if there were, we’d essentially be 


placing him at some point in the neutron 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

245 

monitored population meaning that he was 


exposed to the same degree as the population 


that was routinely exposed. And kind of the 


decision was that based on the evidence it 


doesn’t look like that was the case. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Well, the HPs were 


pretty ^ about that most of the time on the 


Hanford site. 


MR. GRIFFON: Are there any, in the file, 


were there any, I’m not sure for Hanford if 


there are any job history or work history 


cards, those kind of things? You don’t have 


those? 


MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t remember Hanford 


very well. I don’t know. 


MR. GRIFFON: What I’d ask maybe is that 


SC&A look at your response, take it back and 


reconsider. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And we can look again at the 


kinds of, you know, where the evidence lies 


and see if we can’t say more than this. I 


mean, this was pretty preliminary and, 


remember, we’re in Matrix 6 now where we just 


put together --


MR. GRIFFON: Oh, I know; I know. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

246 

MR. HINNEFELD: -- initial responses. We 


need to be able to flesh this out. 


MR. GRIFFON: So maybe both sides can re-


look at this. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


MR. GRIFFON: One-ten point three we’re on 


to, right? 


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, no NIOSH response. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, right. 


MS. BEHLING: Do you want us to go through 


that? Is this the same --


MR. GRIFFON: Is this the fission products ­

-


MS. BEHLING: -- fission product issue? 


MR. GRIFFON: -- or is this a different 


fission product question for Hanford? I’m not 


sure. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I would bet this would be 


the fission product case that would be, this 


would be more directly relevant to the 


information provided the Procedures group than 


the Savannah River cases we’ve looked at so 


far. I would think it would be. 


MR. GRIFFON: Well, there’s no response. I 


wasn’t sure, that’s all. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

247 

MR. FARVER: This has to do with selection 


of Ruthenium-106 as the nuclide of choice and 


references the Hanford radionuclide chooser 


which chooses Cerium-144 as the favorable 


radionuclide. So it’s just a difference in 


nuclides. 


MR. HINNEFELD: So we still owe you answers. 


It may not be that they were all internal. 


MR. FARVER: My recollection on these two, 


ruthenium and cerium, is that there’s probably 


not going to be a whole lot of difference in 


dose. 


MR. GRIFFON: All right, One-eleven point 


one. 


MS. BEHLING: One-eleven point one, I think 


we’ve discussed this earlier. This was 


failure to assign recorded photon dose 


uncertainty and NIOSH has provided us with a 


fairly extensive write-up as to when they use 


a DCF of one as opposed to a mean DCF that 


might be less than one. This is actually an 


efficiency approach, and it’s probably a 


little bit more claimant favorable than using 


the Monte Carlo approach. And we agree 


provided that the cancers do have a mean or 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

248 

low DCF value of less than one, and in this 


case they did. This is a bladder. So, we’re 

okay. 

MR. GRIFFON: So SC&A agrees with --

MS. BEHLING: We agree. 

And 111.2, this is an overestimating 


case at Hanford, and this was an OTIB-002, I 


believe, the hypothetical internal dose. And 


we’re simply saying that they have a workbook 


that they can use, and they could have 


selected the actual -- I believe that’s what 


we’re saying -- that workbook allows them to 


select the bladder and the actual cancers as 


opposed to using the colon as the highest non-


metabolic organ. 


I think that’s what we’re saying. And 


this is something we’ve discussed many times 


before, and it’s again an efficiency approach 


that I believe that NIOSH uses. And even 


though, I guess it’s sometimes a little bit 


confusing for claimants when they get these 


dose reconstruction reports. It must just say 


in there that they assigned a dose to the 


colon as opposed to the actual cancer. It 


does raise some flags for the claimant. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

249 

MR. HINNEFELD: Early on though the tool 


first was developed in ^ --


MS. BEHLING: That’s right. 


MR. HINNEFELD: -- and we directed ORAU in 


the meantime -- we’ve gone through this 


several times. 


MR. GRIFFON: So we’ve got that one. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): This is closed. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


One-twelve point one, is this a TIB018 question? 


MS. BEHLING: This is a TIB-018 question. 


MR. GRIFFON: So we’ve got that. It’s going 


to go to Procedures review, right? 


MS. BEHLING: That’s right. 


One-twelve two, this is a Nevada Test 


Site case, and we’re on 112.2. Let’s see, 


this goes back, wait a minute, reviewer 


questions use of very conservative internal 


assumptions for minimizing dose 


reconstruction. I believe this case was 


compensated. And this again, yes, it was, and 


this again is this combination of OTIB-018 and 


OTIB-033, and it was used for compensation. 


MR. HINNEFELD: So we’ve agreed to provide 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

250 

additional on that or it goes into Procedures 


or something. 


MS. BEHLING: Right, it goes into 


Procedures. 


MR. HINNEFELD: This case probably got 


caught up in the SEC class out there. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): So --


MR. GRIFFON: It’s going to go to you. 


MR. HINNEFELD: The issue. 


MR. GRIFFON: The issue, the TIB-018. 


MS. BEHLING: Were you on the line when we 


discussed that, Wanda? 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Yes, sort of. 


You’re fading in and out, but I got that we’re 


going to discuss in Procedures this OTIB018/OTIB-033 issue. 


MS. BEHLING: Yes, in fact, I think that’s 


next on the matrix for the Procedures review. 


That’s the one we started at. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Yeah, I think it 


is, too. So has this particular finding that 


we’re looking at, this now goes away, right? 


Because --


MS. BEHLING: You’re going to move this onto 


-- Mark? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

251 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think it gets moved. 


Yes, I think it gets moved to the Procedures 


review question. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): All right. 


MS. BEHLING: One-thirteen, this is a Y-12 


case, and I’m just curious as to if it was 


compensated or not. Let’s look in the 


background here. No, it was not compensated. 


I don’t get too much more details. The first 


finding is inappropriate method used for 


estimating missed dose due to 


misinterpretation of procedure. This goes 


back to the TIB-008 and TIB-010, which we’re 


ultimately, they have revised these 


procedures, and we’re going to ultimately, 


hopefully, look at these. 


MR. GRIFFON: Under Procedures review. 

MS. BEHLING: Under the Procedures reviews. 

MR. GRIFFON: And we’ll bring them up. 

MS. BEHLING: So that takes care of finding 

one and two under 113. And finding 113.3, 


improper organ selection for occupational 


medical. And it sounds like NIOSH agrees. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


MS. BEHLING: And 113.4, reviewer could not 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

252 

reproduce internal dose derived from the 


Maximum Internal Dose Calculation, okay. This 


again, you have certain options on that 


hypothetical internal dose, the OTIB-002, in 


the combination of options, we couldn’t come 


up with this same dose that they did using 


various combinations of internal dose. 


MR. GRIFFON: You may want to look at their, 


they selected the wrong tab it looks like, 


right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: And it was a colon because ^ 


cases. 


MR. GRIFFON: I guess the other part of that 


would be, to me the other part that jumps out 


at me is the quality, the peer review. It 


seems like that should have been something 


that got caught in the peer review. Clearly, 


Y-12’s not a reactor, non-uranium site. 


MS. BEHLING: Right. 


MR. GRIFFON: So it happens, but --


MR. HINNEFELD: I think from a, by the time 


it got to OCAS we could very well have just 


passed it on and said, well, it’s too high and 


a non-compensable case, and we’re going to 


send it on. We’ve been known to do that on to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 -- 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 -- 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

253 

OCAS. 


MR. GRIFFON: But how do we know that? How 


do we track that? How do we know if the QA 


system or peer review system’s working? Do 


you know what I’m saying? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I understand exactly 


what you’re saying. 


MR. GRIFFON: Or if it’s just a pass 


through. Is there any documentation that 


would say like the peer reviewer, we reviewed 


this. We found that this error was made; 


however, it didn’t have any consequences so we 


MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t think you’ll 


consistently find that. There may be some 


notes made by some people. 


MR. GRIFFON: Are the peer reviewer’s notes 


included in the dose record or no? Are they 


collected anywhere? The peer review comments 


MR. HINNEFELD: The peer review forms are 


filled out on the ORAU team side, and those 


are documented and saved over there, but 


they’re not submitted with the record. Our 


reviewers can fill out, are periodically or 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

254 

randomly required to fill out the checklist 


that’s attached to our procedure and can 


choose to pick ^, so they could choose to fill 


out the checklist and make that notation on 


that checklist at the time they ^. I don’t 


know that I would say that that’s done every 


time. Somebody may have seen this and said, 


well, it’s ^ going to be compensable. This 


error’s on the high side. We want to get 


cases out ^ and not bother to make that. 


MR. GRIFFON: I just think that’s the kind 


of thing that, you know, you have three 


signatures on something, and you have the 


public getting these eventually getting all 


their records and saying, Y-12, you’re telling 


me I’m in a non-uranium site. What’s wrong 


with this system? 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Well, we’ve talked 


from the very beginning about how to set up an 


assurance program for tracking what’s been 


done and what hasn’t been done. If we don’t 


have a method for picking up or going to a 


record somewhere internally looking at it to 


see what conversations are -- not 


conversations, but what correspondence has 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

255 

taken place between NIOSH and OCAS with 


respect to these cases that we’ve reviewed, 


then we’re asking for trouble because we’d 


have to go back to the individual case to see 


whether the closure was as we had expected it 


to be. Am I not correct? Don’t we need a 


device somewhere where there is at least a 


notation, if not a copy, of the communication 


with ORAU? 


MR. GRIFFON: I guess that’s what I’m 


asking, yes. Is there some documentation of 


what the peer reviewer did other than their 


signature on the final DR report? 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Other than our 


having to go back to that specific case report 


to see it. That’s the issue for me. 


MR. GRIFFON: I’m pretty sure I’ve seen 


collections of, now, I don’t know if there’s 


any database with all your peer review 


comments. I don’t think there’s anything like 


that, no. 


MR. HINNEFELD: There is, if we review and 


comment and return a case, there is a record 


of that communication. There is a record of 


that communication. If we review a case and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

256 

see an error, I mean, these could be 


arithmetic errors of ten millirem in a year or 


something. 


And see, an arithmetic error that’s 


not going to affect the outcome of the case. 


Or if it’s an overestimate, you know, it’s a 


mistake on the high side and not a compensable 


case, we say, okay, well, we want to get cases 


done and give people answers, so we’re going 


to approve that. There won’t necessarily be a 


record of that decision made so that’s where 


we are now. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Yeah, and I’m not 


sure I’m talking about the same thing, Stu. 


What I’m talking about is the kind of 


communication that you just mentioned where we 


looked at a case which had SC&A reviewed the 


case. We had a finding and the decision was, 


yes, there was an error, but it didn’t affect 


the outcome of the case. And if I, what I 


think he said, you said, in cases like this 


it’s not uncommon for you to communicate this 


information to ORAU that an error was ^ in 


this case. NIOSH agreed that it was an error, 


and no rework is necessary because, for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

257 

whatever. Did I hear you say that? 


MR. GRIFFON: I think --


MR. HINNEFELD: I’m not 100 percent sure. 


Are you talking about if there’s an SC&A 


finding on a case? 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Yeah. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And we, NIOSH, say, oh yes, 


that is, in fact, a valid finding, and it’s, 


but it doesn’t affect the outcome. Do we feed 


that information back to ORAU? 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Yeah. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, they get these 


matrices all the time. 


MR. GRIFFON: Because they work on these 


findings so they know. 


What I was talking about, Wanda, more 


was the internal peer review process that if a 


case is done, nothing to do with SC&A getting 


involved at all or the Board. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Yeah, I understand 


that, but what I’m trying to say is we have 


two different, rather disparate forms of 


communication which in my mind would 


constitute good quality assurance. If we, if 


the Board members could at some juncture look 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

258 

at a file and cross-check it against some 


particular case we were concerned with and 


say, yes, this was done as we expected it to 


be. Yes, this peer review was done. Yes, 


this line of communication was with ORAU was 


done. 


It just seems, I guess the bottom line 


here is unless the completed matrix, what we 


end up with at the end of this process is 


going to have clear definition on it that 


these communications took place. And there is 


no place in my mind that we can look at it to 


see that the follow up has been done. Am I 


missing something? 


MR. GRIFFON: I think I see what you’re 


saying. I mean, yeah, I think that is clear 


because ORAU is working with Stu, I think, to 


do the NIOSH responses, so they get this 


matrix all the way through. And I think any 


program actions we designate at the end of 


this are going back to ORAU as well. So if we 


say, yes, NIOSH agrees with the comment; 


however, no changes need to be made to the 


case, then they get that communication. But 


also, if NIOSH agrees and a rework of the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 -- 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

259 

internal dose has to be done, ORAU’s getting 


that communication as well. 


I think that’s correct, right, Stu? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


MR. GRIFFON: So I think they get all this 


communication as far as the cases we’re 


reviewing. I don’t think, I think that does 


happen, Wanda. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Well, I guess I 


continue to be concerned, but perhaps it’s 


because I don’t see any truly finalized 


program action comments on any of our matrices 


yet, and we’ve been at this now for a few 


years. So I don’t have a vision of what our 


completed matrix for the set that we chose for 


our quality assurance review is going to show 


us. Does that make sense to me? 


MR. GRIFFON: It may make sense to you, but 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Perhaps I need to 


write that question out and just pass it 


around at the next meeting. Thank you. 


MR. GRIFFON: Let’s plod back through our 


matrix here. We’re almost done, 113.5 I have. 


Is there any follow up on 113.4? It 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 -- 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

260 

looks like a missed selection. I didn’t know 


if you wanted to, you said you were unable to 


reconstruct. Do you want to look if you --


MS. BEHLING: No, this is fine because it 


just doesn’t have, here again, it’s an 


overestimating case. It just doesn’t have a 


big impact on the case. 


MR. GRIFFON: But it raises that QA question 


MS. BEHLING: But it does raise that QA, 


exactly, it does. 


MR. GRIFFON: But no further action on this. 


MS. BEHLING: No, further, no. 


Okay, we can move on to 114, and case 


114 is also a Y-12 case. And this was an 


overestimating approach again, and the case 


was denied. First finding. This first 


finding is no uncertainty assigned for 


recorded photon dose associated with a 1996 


skin cancer. It was just in this dose 


reconstruction report I believe. 


The dose reconstructor clearly 


indicated that up until 1980 he was going to 


apply a correction factor of 30 percent, 1.3, 


and from ’80 on he was going to apply 1.15. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

261 

And he did that for all, for everything that 


we could see in the IREP except for this one 


year. And I believe NIOSH agrees with that? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


MS. BEHLING: And not that it has an impact, 


but it is we just, you know, we identified. 


And 114.2, NIOSH failed to account for 


all missed photon dose. I believe this, is 


this another LOD over two issue? Let me see. 


And I see NIOSH doesn’t have a response to 


this. I see, there were only nine zeros. I 

might have even done this. When I look 

through the records, I saw 19 zeros. 

Yeah, it’s coming back to me now. But 

I think in the workbook there were only nine 


zeros identified between 1961 and 1981. And 


again, in the earlier years, we’re looking at 


^. It’s not a big dose issue, but it was just 


a discrepancy between what I found in the 


records, and what I found in the workbook, and 


what was actually used in the missed dose 


calculation. 


MR. GRIFFON: This may be a similar to that 


data entry guidance, whether they got 


appropriate guidance. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

262 

MR. SIEBERT: Actually, I don’t think it 


really is. When you’re talking about 19 zeros 


that you found, I think they were ten deep and 


nine shallow. 


MS. BEHLING: Is that right? 


MR. SIEBERT: So nineteen, you would only be 


dealing with ^ together for OTIB-017. 


MR. GRIFFON: So maybe you should both re-


look at that because we don’t have a NIOSH 


response, but both --


MS. BEHLING: I’ll look at that then. You 


may be right. 


Okay, 114.3, reviewer questions 


whether NIOSH should have assigned missed 


neutron dose. And maybe NIOSH can give us 


your response here. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, you’re quoting this Y-12 


facility report. And I questioned this in 


your response. The report states that workers 


with a notable neutron exposure potential --


I’m not sure how that’s defined, notable. 


This goes back to the question of were the 


highest exposed monitored kind of thing that 


we’ve come across many times I guess. Notable 


could be very different than significant, you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

263 

know, in terms of --


MR. HINNEFELD: Why don’t we take another 


shot at this? 


MR. FARVER: Also, is this similar to what 


we discussed earlier in the fourth set about 


the worker in 9212? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


MR. FARVER: They only had it in certain 


locations? 


MS. BEHLING: Uh-huh. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Let me see what I can, maybe 


take another shot at this. 


MR. GRIFFON: So it’s another 9212 Building 

issue here. 

MS. BEHLING: Okay, we’ll move on to 114.4, 

NIOSH did not properly account for all 


occupational medical. I believe I recall that 


the CATI report indicated that the energy 


employee may have had in some cases two X-rays 


per year. And I believe --


MR. GRIFFON: And so Alpha four and five 


people you’re saying did receive two X-rays 


per year? 


MR. HINNEFELD: And we agree that for the 


first part, apparently there are several parts 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

264 

to this one, the first part we agree that the 


two X-rays should have been assigned. 


MR. SIEBERT: That’s really only applicable 


while the Calutron was in operation. This 


person was hired after that. So even though 


we could do two, and it would not affect the 


compensability, if I remember correctly, it’s 


not really appropriate for this person if they 


weren’t there during the Calutron timeframe. 


MS. BEHLING: I see, okay. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Yeah, so that 


one’s okay, closed. 


MR. GRIFFON: Well, we’ve got multiple parts 


here, Wanda. We’re trying to --


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, there are several issues 


here. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Well, if he’s not 


a Calutron worker... 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, he was in those 


buildings but not during the Calutron time 


period is what you’re saying basically. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I hate to come down on the 


other side of the CATI. 


MR. GRIFFON: That’s not what your response 


says though, yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

265 

MR. HINNEFELD: The CATI says that he had 


two a year. 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. That’s why we initially 


identified this as a finding. But then 


there’s also some other issues. And I guess 


this also brings up the issue of the fact that 


we need to be looking closely at these CATI 


reports. And if we’re not going to agree with 


what was stated in the CATI report, I think 


there needs to be some kind of an explanation 


as to why we didn’t consider maybe two X-rays. 


Just more of an explanation just for the 


claimant’s benefit. 


MR. GRIFFON: Well, let me get -- so, Stu, 


are you, it seems like you’re not sure on the 


first one yet. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I’m not so sure, well, as 


the response is written --


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it seems like you’re in 


agreement --


MR. HINNEFELD: But now if this person 


wasn’t really an Alpha Calutron worker because 


he was hired after the Calutron was shut down, 


then the question is, well, what do you do 


about a CATI that says that he got two X-rays 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

266 

per year. He specifically says I got two per 


year. 


MR. GRIFFON: And you’ve got the person 


saying that. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and what do you do in 


that case if the PBD says one per year or 


doesn’t say that? So to me I think there’s a 


little discussion on our side about that much. 


MR. GRIFFON: I agree, yeah. 


Now the second issue, let’s go through 


these one by one maybe, because the next 


paragraph says the second issue. 


MS. BEHLING: I believe the second issue had 


to do with pulling incorrect doses. And 


again, we’re talking about small doses here, 


but it was pulling incorrect doses from the 


wrong column of the OTIB-006. He pulled from 


the wrong years I believe. The DR used the 


dose value of 3.2 E-3 from the ’70 through 


1985 column instead of the correct value of 


6.4 E-3 from the pre-1970. 	 This is for 1969. 


MR. GRIFFON: And NIOSH seems to be saying 


you used the Y-12 TBD, not TIB-006, right? 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, so I’ll have a look at 


that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

267 

MR. GRIFFON: SC&A’s got to check that. 

MS. BEHLING: And the third issue --

MR. GRIFFON: Pre-hire and termination Xrays. 

MS. BEHLING: What was NIOSH’s response on 

that? 

MR. HINNEFELD: It had to do with a timing 


issue because of the person’s short period of 


employment. You have a pre-hire. You have an 


annual, and you have, and then if you also do 


a term, you’ve got three in just a few months 


if I’m not mistaken. 


MS. BEHLING: Why don’t I look at this one 


also? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


MS. BEHLING: The second part of this. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Stu, did you all, were you 


able to get in his medical records and look 


and see if the X-ray reports were in those 


medical records? 


MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t know. 


Do you know, Scott, did we get --


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): The bottom line 


then the claim remains non-compensable. 


MS. BEHLING: Well, I guess to complete our 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

268 

matrix I guess for the second and third --


MR. GRIFFON: Of course, we’re not looking 

at POC, but --

MS. BEHLING: -- but I’ll just go back and 

look at it. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the answer’s in our 


response. I mean, our response says it all. 


Nowadays we would have given a few more. So I 


think in all totaled it wouldn’t affect the 


outcome. 


MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


One-fourteen point five. 


MS. BEHLING: One-fourteen point five, 


again, this is the issue associated with the 


CATI report. And the first issue was this X-


ray issue that we just discussed. And then 


also I believe two potential incidents that 


were discussed in the CATI report, internal 


and external incidents, but we didn’t feel 


that NIOSH had properly addressed them. 


And again, a lot of times this is just 


adding some words to that section of the DR 


report that indicates that you did look at 


this and what your justification was for not 


assigning additional doses. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

269 

MR. GRIFFON: Was this person, was this 


person, I mean, I got the impression from the 


last comment that it was a short period of --


MR. HINNEFELD: I was wrong. I was 


confusing it with something else. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, because I was going to 


say, this suggests that it’s a long, many 


bioassays it says. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I was confused. 


MS. BEHLING: ‘Fifty-four through ’62 and 


’69 through ’82. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Sounds like more 


than one period of employment. 


MS. BEHLING: And again like I said this --


MR. GRIFFON: Response for external dose 


will be supplied later it says, right? But 


for the internal you think the bioassay can be 


used to bound it basically is kind of what 


you’re saying? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


MR. GRIFFON: Which we’ve accepted in the 


past. 


MR. HINNEFELD: But the wording, it may be a 


fact that the dose reconstruction should 


specifically say that this incident, any dose 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

270 

from this incident will be included in --


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and we’ve had that 


finding before. 


MS. BEHLING: And so I assume though that 


you did look to see that this incident, that 


bioassays were being taken during the time of 


this incident. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it said if there were 


bioassay taken after the incident --


MS. BEHLING: After, sure after. 


MR. HINNEFELD: As a general rule it’s going 


to bound -- the dose reconstructor is going to 


bound the --


MR. GRIFFON: Here’s a question to get at 


Wanda’s earlier comment when you follow up on 


this because we had that in the first set of 


cases. We’d had the comment about even if the 


bioassay data can be used to bound, that you 


should at least, if it’s mentioned in the 


CATI, you should at least include it in your 


DR report that we’ve considered the incidents 


that you da-da-da. Now, I don’t know when 


this case was done, but if it was a later 


case, then that DR report template was 


revised, right? So I don’t know, I’m 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

271 

wondering if it should have been included. 


MR. HINNEFELD: It sounds like it should. 


If there’s not a description of these events 


in the dose reconstruction, they should have 


been there. The dose reconstructor should 


have said this dose reconstruction encompasses 


any dose that would have been received in this 


incident that was described. 


MR. GRIFFON: But you know what I’m getting 


at. 


MR. HINNEFELD: But I know what you’re 


getting at. 


MR. GRIFFON: To see if our findings are 


actually being carried through. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I suspect this was an older 


case. 


MS. BEHLING: June of 2005 we started to put 


that into our summary report as to when you 


did this case, June 2005. 


MR. GRIFFON: June 2005, so that would have 


been right around when we were talking about 


this. When you follow up, just follow up on 


that as well. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


MR. SIEBERT: Well, it is mentioned in the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

272 

dose reconstruction report. 


MR. HINNEFELD: What’s it say? 


MR. SIEBERT: According to the interview, 


the individual was involved in an incident 


unknown time. Well, it is in the CATI as 


unknown time. It described what was in the 


CATI, but it states they were monitored for 


internal dose throughout their employment and 


intakes would have been detected. 


MR. GRIFFON: So you covered it. That’s 

good. 

MR. SIEBERT: So it is in there. 

MR. GRIFFON: Good to know the system works. 

So in the Y-12 response for external 


incidents you’re going to get a response for 


that? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we’re not, our 


response ^. 


MR. GRIFFON: So for the first part do you 


agree that the internal would be bounding? Do 


you want to look at that? 


MS. BEHLING: I wrote down that I’d look at 


that. I’m sure it is. I just want to verify. 


Case 115, this is K-25, Y-12. This 


was a best estimate, and it was compensated. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

273 

And we had just an insignificant finding that 


in 1987 this shallow dose was entered into 


IREP twice. I’m sure it doesn’t have any 


impact. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We even made out what the 


impact is. It doesn’t change anything. 


MR. GRIFFON: Very minor, but again a QC 

question. 

MS. BEHLING: And we can move on to 116, and 

this was an X-10 case. 


MR. GRIFFON: We’ve got TIB-008 right off 


the bat. 


MS. BEHLING: So it must have been an 


overestimating case, so we know that that’s 


finding one and two will be taken care of by 


the Procedures review. 


Finding three, improper organ selected 


for estimating occupational medical dose. 


Again, this is probably just not selecting the 


actual organ as opposed to selecting the 


highest --


MR. HINNEFELD: There was a practice at the 


time just pick the highest one off the chart. 


MS. BEHLING: Right, and 116.4 again is the 


Maximum Internal hypothetical internal dose 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

274 

workbook and --


MR. GRIFFON: It’s been corrected. 


MS. BEHLING: Yes, the same thing there. 


One-seventeen, this is ANL West, and 


here again, this is a TIB-018 and TIB-033 


discussion. 


That’s next, 118. Let Doug handle 


this. 


MR. GRIFFON: Hold on one second if you 


could. I just want to make some notes here. 


MS. BEHLING: Although I see NIOSH hasn’t 


responded to this one. 


MR. GRIFFON: Now we went by 117.1 kind of 


fast there. Was it TIB-018/TIB-033? 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Thank you again. 


Got it. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that’s for Wanda mainly, 


but there’s a lot more words here, and I 


wonder if this is a different issue. I didn’t 


get a chance to really digest it. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


MR. GRIFFON: Did everybody read the NIOSH 


response? Is this the same thing? 


MS. BEHLING: I believe this goes to the 


heart of the question that I had asked earlier 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

275 

as to --


MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah, it does, compensable 


claims. 


MS. BRACKETT (by Telephone): Now this is 


slightly different than the others because I 


believe what the response is saying is that 


this case was done prior to, or I guess just 


shortly after OTIB-033 was issued and that the 


dose reconstructor used a different value than 


what was in OTIB-033. It was a judgment case, 


and they just went ahead and applied this 


without using OTIB-033 specifically. 


MS. BEHLING: I guess we were saying that we 


were expecting to see a reference to OTIB-033. 


I understand. So they used a graded approach, 


but they didn’t necessarily follow TIB-033. 


MS. BRACKETT (by Telephone): The graded 


approach somewhat preceded the development of 


OTIB-033. They started applying that while 


the OTIB was in development, so it was kind of 


a concurrent event. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, that clarifies it. 

MS. BEHLING: Yeah, that answers that. 

MR. GRIFFON: So do you need to look back at 

that to make sure --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

276 

MS. BEHLING: No. 

MR. GRIFFON: -- that it’s consistent with 

TIB-033 or no? I mean, is there any case 

consequences here or can we defer the whole 


thing to the Procedures review is what I’m 


asking. 


MS. BEHLING: I’ll look at it. I’ll look at 


it. I don’t think there are any case 


consequences, but I will just look at it. 


MR. GRIFFON: Thank you, Liz. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): That’s if we need 


to do, Kathy? 


MS. BEHLING: Pardon me? I’m sorry. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): You’ll get back to 


us if we need to consider it further. 


MS. BEHLING: Yes, I will. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yes, yes, otherwise it will 


just go to the Procedures review, and you’ll 


take care of it. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Thank you so much. 


MR. GRIFFON: One-eighteen. 


MR. FARVER: One-eighteen, 118.1. 


MR. GRIFFON: We don’t have any NIOSH 


response. 


MR. FARVER: There’s no NIOSH response so 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

277 

you just want me to go through these pretty 


quick? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, at least what set are we 

at? 

MS. BEHLING: INEEL. 

MR. FARVER: The first finding has to do 


with the reliability of recorded photon dose 


which gets to the film dosimeter that was used 


in 1958 and so forth. And there’s some 


discussion in the dose report about that, in 


the case report. So we’ll wait for their 


response. 


One-eighteen point two, and let’s see, 


point three, point four, point five, those all 


have to do with there was a period of time 


when the employee worked at ANL West for about 


13 years. And there’s no records, whether 


they do not exist or what, but there were no 


records. So whether this is complete 


neutron/photon dose we just don’t know. 


MR. GRIFFON: Now we’re on 118.5? Is that 


where you’re at? 


MR. FARVER: Yes. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): At least that’s 


where I put my note. I hope that’s where we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

278 

are. 


MS. BEHLING: That’s where we are. 


MR. FARVER: This is another one where 


they’re all chronic intakes improperly 


accounted for because there’s a time period of 


12 years that you can’t verify. 


MR. GRIFFON: So it’s the --


MR. FARVER: So this all goes back to the 


records. Number six, the 1958 internal dose 


appears low. 


MS. BEHLING: There was an incident. 


MR. FARVER: This was an incident that 


happened, right, --


MS. BEHLING: Hans worked on this, yes, on 


this portion. I remember. And this incident 


was documented quite well I think in the 


records. But Hans was still, I think, 


questioning some of the information that was 


in there. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We’re still preparing our 


response. That was SL-1, wasn’t it? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it was SL-1 in ‘58. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): This guy was it 


SL-1? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we don’t know. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

279 

MR. GRIFFON: We don’t know. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We’re trying to decide. 


This is in 1958, so I mean, people who weren’t 


there at the accident. It’s my understanding 


a lot of people actually had to respond during 


recovery and had to work in that area. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I thought those 


people were covered like a blanket. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, they certainly were 


monitored during recovery. 


MR. HINNEFELD: If that’s the incident we’re 


talking about, there’s a lot of information 


about it. 


MR. FARVER: There were a lot of records. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We haven’t written our 


response. 


MR. FARVER: Then the last finding, 118.7, 


unclear whether all the data is adequate for 


determining the POC, asked to go back to the 


missing records. So most of those findings 


were just about the missing records. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Was it internal or external 


missing from ANL West or both? 


MR. GRIFFON: Both. 


MR. FARVER: Both, I believe. I don’t think 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

280 

there was anything from ANL West. I don’t 


know if there were asked and didn’t respond or 


they weren’t asked and didn’t respond. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): They must be 


somewhere. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, 119, we’re getting 


there, page 32. 


MS. BEHLING: I’m going to let Doug do this. 


He worked on this case. 


MR. GRIFFON: We’re going to take a five 


minute comfort break. We’re getting close, 


but we’ve got more than five minutes’ work 


here so give us a five minute comfort break 


and stay out of the big waves, Wanda. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I will be right 


here. 


MR. GRIFFON: Let’s keep it to five because 


people have flights, so we’re going to keep it 


short. Thanks. 


DR. WADE (by Telephone): Okay, this is Lew; 


I’ll be here. 


(Whereupon, a break was taken from 4:00 p.m. 


until 4:05 p.m.) 


MR. GRIFFON: Wanda, are you there? 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I am. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

281 

MR. GRIFFON: As promised we’re back quickly 


so you can get back to your activities. Yeah, 


case 119.1. 


MR. FARVER: And this is a Mound case. 


We’re switching territory. Reviewer questions 


appropriateness of photon energy, and I guess 


if you look at the NIOSH dose report it says 


basically he worked everywhere. 


We couldn’t really tell, so we made 


certain assumptions. And in our review we 


looked at it and said, well, if you look at 


the bioassay data, and you look at some of the 


processes and what he was bioassayed for, and 


some of the dosimetry data, you can probably 


make a good timeline. And so that was our 


point. 


MR. GRIFFON: Well, the first one I have is 


photon distribution. Am I looking at the 


wrong one? 


MS. BEHLING: No. 


MR. GRIFFON: Questions the appropriateness 


of the --


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, photon energy 


distribution. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Because where they go --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

282 

MS. BEHLING: Yeah, that’s based on 


location. 


MR. FARVER: And there’s NIOSH’s response 


basically, and this was a compensable case. 


MR. GRIFFON: It was a compensable case. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


MR. FARVER: So what they’re saying is, 


yeah, it would have increased it but --


MR. HINNEFELD: Actually, it would have 


decreased it a little bit. 


MR. FARVER: Decreased it. 


MS. BEHLING: And I guess again, and correct 


me if I’m wrong here, but sometimes is it 


also, as I said, one of the things we’re 


supposed to be looking at is consistency 


issues. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


MS. BEHLING: And for some best estimate 


cases they go through hoops to identify as 


much as they can where a person worked and all 


the various details. And other times in this 


case they gave the 32-50 which is, I think, an 


unfavorable assumption, and they didn’t try to 


break things down. And it was just, again, 


difference in dose reconstructors, and the way 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

283 

they approach these things. 


MR. FARVER: Everybody okay with that? 


MS. BEHLING: Are you ready to move on, 

Mark, or --

MR. GRIFFON: No, I mean, you raise a good 

point there though, the consistency question. 


I didn’t realize it was a best estimate, too, 


not minimizing, it’s a best estimate approach. 


MR. HINNEFELD: It’s partial, isn’t it? Our 


response indicates that we didn’t include the 


missed dose for the period ’63 to ’77. 


MS. BEHLING: I guess you said reasonable 


estimate so --


MR. FARVER: Yeah, this was strange because 


it didn’t say best estimate like they usually 


do. They said reasonable estimate. 


MR. GRIFFON: Well, again, do you know, Stu? 


Can you tell? Scott, the full internal done 


as well? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Our initial response says 


that this was an underestimating efficiency 


approach. That it omits the missed dose for 


the period 1963 to 1977. 


MR. SIEBERT: Right, this is definitely not 


a best estimate. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

284 

MS. BEHLING: It was not? 


MR. GRIFFON: So it’s compensated, and it’s 


a --


MS. BEHLING: Reasonable estimate. 


MR. GRIFFON: -- underestimate or whatever. 


MR. FARVER: I think it started off one way, 


and then got changed to a second attempt. 


MS. BEHLING: Could be. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): And in what time 


period did we do this DR? 


MR. HINNEFELD: April of ’05, Wanda. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): ‘O-five, so some 


things have changed since then in any case. 


If it’s a consistency issue, then is it a 


little difficult to evaluate based on what 


today’s approach would be in any case? 


MR. GRIFFON: Well, if it’s an 


underestimating approach, there’s not a 


consistency issue really. I think it’s if 


it’s a best estimate approach, we want to make 


sure we’re consistent in the sharpness of the 


pencil so to speak. If you’re scrutinizing 


one set of cases more than another set of 


cases, then we have issues. But in this case 


I don’t think it’s a best estimated set, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 -- 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

285 

underestimate. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): And that was going 


to be my question. 


MS. BEHLING: It’s identified as a 


reasonable estimate. But as Doug said, I 


think they recognized that this was going to 


be compensated, and then maybe approached it a 


little bit differently. 


MR. GRIFFON: So I think, I mean, if I can 


summarize on the first one, NIOSH is saying 


you may have a point here with your finding; 


however, it’s a minimized approach and even if 


we did what you recommended, it would have 


resulted in, what, a lower? Is that what you 


said, Stu? It would have actually lowered the 


MR. HINNEFELD: The work locations would 


have lowered it finally, but there’s missed 


dose that was not included in the dose 


reconstruction that wasn’t because it wasn’t 


needed. That would then, if it went down so 


far that it would have to ^ to 30 percent, we 


would have to go back and add in that missed 


dose. But it was quite a lot larger and then 


this changed this down. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

286 

MR. GRIFFON: So you didn’t need to sharpen 


the pencils to the point of looking at job 


locations and stuff because you already were 


on a minimizing approach. You were already 


tripped over, right? Is that --


MR. HINNEFELD: I think probably what 


happened was, I think there’s a good chance, 


like Doug’s correct. That they started 


working it now knowing how it was going to 


turn out. Got it above 50 percent, and said, 


oh --


MR. GRIFFON: Should have been, yeah. 


MR. FARVER: And I think it started off, 


like you said, one way and then got changed to 


another at the end. And that’s why the term 


reasonable estimate’s in there probably 


instead of best estimate. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Or even underestimate. 


MR. GRIFFON: So how, for the first one, 


point one, is there agreement but it doesn’t 


affect the case? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, that’s what I wanted to 


hear. 


MR. FARVER: One-nineteen point two, the DR 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

287 

does not properly account for 1964 photon 


dose. It looks like it was a typo. The data 

was entered off by a decimal place. They have 

180 millirems instead of 1.8 rem. 

MS. BEHLING: It doesn’t impact the 


compensability. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We agree. 


MR. GRIFFON: I guess a QA question. I’m 


not sure we can find every line item, but it 


is a QA question again in my mind. It doesn’t 


affect this case obviously. 


MR. FARVER: One-nineteen point three, the 


neutron energy distribution appropriateness, 


goes back to the work location we just talked 


about. 


MS. BEHLING: Uh-huh, same as one. 


MR. GRIFFON: Can you do point three again? 


I’m sorry. What’s the disposition on that? 


MR. FARVER: It’s the same as the earlier 


about the work location photons. 


MR. GRIFFON: So no action. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): It’s agreed, okay. 


MR. HINNEFELD: If I’m not mistaken, our 


response even accounted for the fact that the 


neutron didn’t change as well when we did our 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

288 

recalculation. 

MR. GRIFFON: At any rate, no action. 

MS. BEHLING: Yeah, no action. 

MR. GRIFFON: And 120, last case. 

MS. BEHLING: Another Mound site. This is a 

best estimate. 

MR. FARVER: One-twenty point one, recorded 


photon dose not properly converted to organ 


dose from 1968 to ’77. This has to do it 


looks like the way they figured uncertainty, 


review uncertainty. It’s two findings, 120.1 


and 120.2. It has to do with their 


calculational methods. This goes back to the 


wording of the dose report. 


They’ll put tables in with the dose 


conversion factors, and then they’ll calculate 


an effective dose conversion factor. And in 


the text they’ll say the dose, the DCF 


effective was the factor applied to the 


measured and missed doses for the dose 


reconstruction. And then they go do a Monte 


Carlo calculation which, of course, changes 


their DCFs. It’s not that what they did was 


wrong. It didn’t match what they said. 


And then 120.2 has to do with the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

289 

organ dose uncertainty. 


MR. GRIFFON: How do we, what’s our action 


for the first one? Is there --


MR. HINNEFELD: I think in our response to 


the case we agree with the finding, and it may 


be we shouldn’t report those effective DCFs 


and the tabulation of them in the report the 


way we did. 


MR. FARVER: Or put in the report that 


because you’re doing a Monte Carlo 


calculation, DCFs may differ. 


MR. HINNEFELD: This kind of runs to the 


issue we run into with the how much, what are 


you going to tell the claimant, and what’s 


going to mean something to them. And there 


are only a handful of claimants that would be 


described a Monte Carlo combination of a 


normal distribution type distribution, only a 


handful of them. So we tend to shy away from 


writing that the way the dose reconstructor 


report is currently ^. 


MR. SIEBERT: And it actually was mentioned 


in this dose reconstruction report in the next 


paragraph saying that Monte Carlo techniques 


were used which incorporated error from 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

290 

dosimeters as well as uncertainty in the range 


of DCFs. So it is mentioned in there. 


MR. GRIFFON: So it is in there. 


MR. FARVER: So in which case I would just 


take out that one sentence about saying that 


the effective DCFs were applied to the 


measured. Just delete that one and go on with 


your Monte Carlo explanation. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Well, if you try 


to explain something like Monte Carlo methods 


to a non-technical person, the very use of the 


term Monte Carlo leads them to believe that 


you are essentially rolling dice. It’s 


probably, I agree it’s not wise to undertake 


that kind of explanation. 


MR. GRIFFON: Can I ask NIOSH if they could 


review their boilerplate language regarding 


that issue and give us a response on that? 


MR. FARVER: And a lot of times it’s an item 


or sentence, you’re just deleting it. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And we still have in our 


mind, you know, we haven’t had anybody to work 


on the simplification or change of the dose 


reconstruction report to write a section for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

291 

the claimant and a section for the Health 


Physicist. That’s still on the table. 


MS. BEHLING: Although I have, in fact, I 


was going to ask you if you have revised your 


templates because I just saw a dose 


reconstruction report that has a paragraph in 


there, very nice worded paragraph, that tries 


to explain to the claimant, we conducted this 


dose reconstruction using this methodology; 


however, if you were to get a second cancer, I 


saw there’s some new wording put into that, 


nice wording, that tries to explain. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, ^. 


MS. BEHLING: Right. Some of these 


assumptions will not apply potentially if you 


get a second cancer. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we have done that which 


is that goes into an overestimating case where 


if we’ve got an overestimating case because it 


has happened a number of times that people 


will then develop a second cancer and come 


back and the overestimating approach doesn’t 


work any more. And so we do a best estimate, 


and their total POC goes down even though 


they’ve got two cancers. They tell me what in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

292 

the heck’s going on. So because of that exact 


situation is why we’ve developed that. Thank 


you. I appreciate your compliment. I don’t 


think I wrote that one unfortunately, but I 


appreciate the compliment. 


MS. BEHLING: But I did start to see that in 


some of the newer... 


MR. GRIFFON: So yeah, we’ll put that in 


there. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And again, it kind of fits 


with our continuing struggle to write a dose 


reconstruction that’s comprehensive and 


explanatory but that doesn’t overwhelm and 


also communicate with the public. And I just 


think the way you do it, you’ve got to do it 


in sections. You’ve got to write one section 


for the public and the other section to 


explain to the Health Physicist. I just don’t 


think, when you try to blend it all together, 


it doesn’t work very well for anybody. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): No. 


MR. GRIFFON: One-twenty point two. 


MR. FARVER: One-twenty point two, now this 


is a little tricky. This has to do with using 


a dosimeter uncertainty and applying it to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

293 

summation of dosimeter results. Apparently 


all the individual results from ’68 through 


’77 were lost. They just have annual totals, 


but when they calculated the uncertainty, they 


used Table 6.20 out of the TBD which lists 


photon dosimeter relative uncertainty based on 


a dosimeter. Now it doesn’t say that the 


dosimeter was exposed over an annual period or 


anything like that. 


But we’re just questioning is it 


appropriate to take an individual dosimeter 


uncertainty and apply it to what is known to 


be a group of dosimeters without propagating 


the error through. In other words if it’s a 


monthly frequency, should we take and divide 


his annual by 12? Would it propagate the 


error that would be associated with each 


monthly? 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): In the total 


number of dosimeters are you talking about all 


the same type of dosimeters being used during 


that timeframe? 


MR. FARVER: No, we’re talking about the 


dosimeter results were missing, individual 


dosimeter results. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

294 

MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I understand that. 


MR. FARVER: Okay. And they applied an 


uncertainty to those results that’s based on a 


dosimeter, but the dosimeters were, there were 


multiple dosimeters, and it’s over a varying 


time period and there’s the uncertainty 


changes. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): That’s what I’m 


asking. You’re talking about the uncertainty 


for an individual dosimeter, not for 


dosimeters of that type. 


MR. FARVER: Dosimeters of that type of a 


time period, but it’s an individual dosimeter. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Right, okay, I 


think. 


(pause) 


MS. BEHLING: We’re all reviewing NIOSH’s 


response. That’s the silence. 


MR. FARVER: Now what you did was apply as, 


let’s assume that all of that was a single 


dosimeter which is what I think you meant to 


do. And then apply that error assuming it was 


all in one dosimeter. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, by and large, I think 


that’s what we do. All we have is an annual 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

295 

total dose, and we know the frequency, 


exchange frequency. We maximize the missed 


dose by saying all badges but one read zero, 


and the one audited dose came in as one badge. 


So that’s normally what we do. So if we did 


that in this case, then what we felt like 


we’ve done is we’ve given then the most 


possible missed dose. 


The measured dose total is going to be 


the same because it’s the annual dose that was 


reported. You put that on one badge. And if 


you put it on one badge, then this would be 


the uncertainty calculation. I think that’s 


how, I don’t know if that was done in this 


case or not, but that’s typically what we try 


to do. 


MR. FARVER: I guess the rub is if you do 


it, assuming it’s all one dose, then you’re 


going to have to give them missed dose for the 


other time periods which is what you did. I 


believe that’s okay. It was just --


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): It seems to me 


that would be about as claimant favorable as 


you can get. 


MR. FARVER: I guess this goes back to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

296 

wording again. It wasn’t stated. It wasn’t ­

-


MR. HINNEFELD: Wasn’t described. 


MR. FARVER: It wasn’t clear. And that’s 


okay. It might be something to put in the TBD 


to clear it up. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and it’s again, you 


know, how much information do you want to tell 


the claimant. 


MR. FARVER: Well, and that’s why I said it 


might be the place to put it in the TBD if 


this is what you’re going to do for those 


years. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And I think they’re, I’m not 


sure what IG-1 says about that. I think it 


even says, I think the directions in our 


Implementation Guide Number One that says if 


all you have is annual totals, you pretty much 


have to assume that all the badge exchanges 


were zero except for one and put all the dose 


on that one badge exchange, and then give them 


missed for the remainder of however many 


cycles there were during the year. 


MS. BEHLING: And that certainly seems 


claimant favorable. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

297 

MR. GRIFFON: How do you determine, in this 


particular case how do you know that they were 


monitored for all -- say, it’s a monthly 


exchange. How do you know if they were 


monitored for every month? 


MS. BEHLING: You don’t. 


MR. HINNEFELD: In this case we wouldn’t. 


MR. SIEBERT: It’s just a claimant favorable 

assumption. 

MR. GRIFFON: But how do you know it’s 

claimant favorable? 


MR. HINNEFELD: If there was something that 


was, if they were unmonitored and exposed. 


Well, I don’t know. I mean, we could research 


practices. I don’t know what the site profile 


says about --


MR. GRIFFON: I don’t know the 


circumstances, particular years. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Certain sites were badged 


religiously certain years because of security 


credentials and --


MR. GRIFFON: Well, I guess the question 


comes up --


MS. BEHLING: ^ unmonitored. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, if you’re talking if 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

298 

they were unmonitored and exposed so that 


their total is incorrect for the year. 


MR. GRIFFON: Or just how did you validate 


that the, was there any validation that your 


totals were accurate, that the annual totals 


made any sense? 


MR. FARVER: I don’t think that there was a 


way. I think they just had totals for a year 


like on a dose report, 1967. There was not 


individual dosimeter results. 


MR. HINNEFELD: So the question can we, what 


can we do, or can we validate what, there 


wasn’t, there were unmonitored people who 


would be exposed, measurably exposed. 


MR. GRIFFON: How many years was this, when 


this practice? 


MR. FARVER: Twelve years or thereabouts. 


Twelve years. 


MR. GRIFFON: A 12 year time period, I mean, 


maybe --


MR. FARVER: I mean, it states in the TBD 


that the records were lost and all they had 


was the annual doses which is fine. And it 


just might be a matter of adding a statement 


to the TBD saying in that case this is what we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

299 

do. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And to your, you know, find 


out about what we can about practices. 


There’s a pretty extensive dosimeter history 


from them, big, internal ones, internal ones, 


external ones. There are actually two of 


them. So it could very well be that there are 


documents in there that document practices 


that would give us confidence that would allow 


us to conclude that monitored people were 


exposed. 


MR. SIEBERT: Different document, same 


series. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And there’s a lot of worker 


now though essentially a low dose, low 


external dose job ^. 


MR. GRIFFON: I agree that it would be, in 


the scenario you presented, I think it would 


be certainly claimant favorable, but I just go 


back to that data question. So that’s sort of 


a, I mean, that is a site profile question 


more than a case question I guess. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): It is. It’s also 


another one of the you can’t prove what didn’t 


happen. All you can prove is that you have an 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

300 

annual dose for this individual. And the 


kindest thing one can possibly do in a case 


like that is what they’re telling us they did 


which is give them all the missed dose except 


for one case and devise one case as being the 


source of the entire dose for the annual 


period. It can’t get any better than that for 


the claimant, can it? 


MS. BEHLING: If there was, possibly in the 


early years they did group badging where one 


individual was given a badge for an entire 


group. If something like that would be stated 


in your site profile, then that’s something 


that we would possibly approach this a little 


bit different. Because rather than assigning 


missed dose, you might want to assign a 


coworker dose. 


I don’t know how you determine that, 


but you could at least go back and say what 


were the practices. And that’s what NIOSH is 


stating that they’re going to do is go back 


and look at Mound and look at the, because 


they have a lot of data for that site, to see 


what were the practices, dosimetry practices 


being performed at that time. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

301 

MS. MUNN (by Telephone): But by 1968 that 


type of thinking was pretty well by the 


boards, was it not? 


MS. BEHLING: Well, probably, you’re 


probably right. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I think ’68 to ’77 


is a fairly active and fairly comprehensible 


knowledge base for how to approach badging and 


dosimetry. 


MR. GRIFFON: And I also think it’s a period 


where they -- well, two things. I think they 


were switching from film to TLD, a lot of 


sites. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Probably. 


MR. GRIFFON: They were tending to monitor 


more people than less, most of the sites were 


at that time. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Absolutely. 


MR. GRIFFON: So my sense would be that a 


lot of people were probably being monitored 


that probably didn’t even need to be monitored 


during that time period, but again, I’m just 


saying show me. Can we prove it in any way? 


Can we back it up? 


MR. HINNEFELD: We’ll see what we can find. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

302 

MR. GRIFFON: And it goes to a site profile 


issue. It doesn’t, it’s not for this case. 


MR. FARVER: One-twenty point three, neutron 


dose not properly converted. This goes back 


to 120.1 about the photons. As simple as 


taking out that statement about the effective 


DCF being used. 


And then 120.4 is the uncertainty 


question related to neutrons to photons. And 


once again I believe it was taken care of with 


the missed neutron dose if that’s what they 


did which is what it appears, yes. And that 


just might be a matter of a statement 


somewhere. So nothing too exciting. 


One-twenty point five, inappropriate 


internal dose model assumptions --


MR. GRIFFON: Wait, what’s the disposition, 


120.4, what’s the --


MR. FARVER: Oh, 120.4 is probably going to 


be the same as 120.2 that correlates to the 


photon uncertainty. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, same question, you’ve 


got an annual total. 


MR. FARVER: And 120.3 correlates to 120.1. 


One-twenty point five, inappropriate 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

303 

internal dose model assumptions were used in 


calculating Plutonium-238 dose. One of the 


things that NIOSH mentions is they incorrectly 


normalized the data. It was already at 24­

hour samples so you wouldn’t need to normalize 


the bioassay data. 


MR. GRIFFON: So you’re saying you’d use the 


date for a polonium exposure instead of a 


plutonium exposure? 


MR. FARVER: You’d have to, the date was 


incorrect, yes. 


MR. HINNEFELD: They had the wrong date. 


MR. FARVER: Wrong date, it’s two separate 


incidents. 


And then the other question --


MR. GRIFFON: And so these were, this is a, 


I mean, these doses were changed by about 17 


percent you’re saying, they increased, the net 


result on this correction was about a 17 


percent increase in doses? 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): It didn’t change ­

-


MR. GRIFFON: It didn’t result in the POC 

going over it. This was a less than 50 case 

I’m assuming. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

304 

MS. BEHLING: It was denied. 

MR. FARVER: And the other concern was --

MS. BEHLING: It was at 48 percent. 

MR. GRIFFON: It was at 48 percent? 

MS. BEHLING: 48.18. 

MR. GRIFFON: But these changes didn’t 

affect that. 

MR. FARVER: The other concern --

MR. GRIFFON: Wait a second. I’m waiting 

for a response. That was a planned delay. 


Scott’s looking it up, I think. 


MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, it did not change the 


compensability essentially. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): But it is going to 


go back for additional reconstruction, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, at this point I don’t 


think it is. 


MR. GRIFFON: I mean, I see these edits 


indicating changes, increases in dose. Your 


response? 


MS. BEHLING: Well, let’s see, 17 percent of 


what, of what dose? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, they’re fairly small, 


but I mean, it’s only going from 1.8 rem to 


two rem. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

305 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, rather than look at 17 


percent, look at there’s a 300 millirem on one 


change and 100 millirem on the other so that’s 


not a --


MR. GRIFFON: Well, I didn’t realize it was 


at 48 point something so even a small change 


could --


MR. FARVER: The other part of that finding 


that I don’t see in the response has to do 


with, it appeared that NIOSH only considered 


the PU-238 results up to 1981, and there were 


21 results between ’81 and ’92 that did not 


appear to be considered in their dose 


estimates. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I should have sent last week 


an IMBA run that supports this. 


MR. GRIFFON: That’s what I was going to 


ask. If you haven it, if you can provide --


MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t seem to have it on 


my computer, but I believe I sent that with 


these initial responses. 


MR. GRIFFON: So I’m going to put NIOSH will 


provide IMBA run. If you have already, just 


let us know where. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Stu did send some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

306 

plutonium information. I remember putting it 


in my file. 


MS. BRACKETT (by Telephone): And those 


later samples were included when the case was 


reassessed. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


MS. BRACKETT (by Telephone): Tom LaBone did 


the fit actually for the reassessment. 


MR. FARVER: Well there’s a good question 


right there. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): I thought you 


actually sent even the worksheet. I thought ­

-


MR. HINNEFELD: I intended, there is, a file 


was prepared that supports this that shows 


this refitted plutonium with the correct date 


and using all the bioassay data and fitting 


the curve. Like I said, the curve was forced 


to fit the data and --


MR. GRIFFON: You may have. There was one 


separate IMBA file sent with the e-mail. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And I intended to attach it. 


I intended to attach it. 


MR. GRIFFON: That was it. 


MR. FARVER: I just don’t recall seeing that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

307 

data considered in the original file. 


MR. HINNEFELD: It was not in the original 


dose reconstruction. It was not in the 


original dose reconstruction. It was to 


support this initial response. 


MR. FARVER: Okay, so I was correct, and I 


didn’t see it the first time. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. That is correct. It 


was not there. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): But you sent that 


on the seventh. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, it was on that e-mail? 


MR. GRIFFON: You’re right, Wanda. There 


was an IX file, yeah. I guess we’re going to 


pull up and make sure, but meanwhile we have 


one more here? 


MR. FARVER: One more is 120.6, NIOSH does 


not properly address the identified incidents. 


And it just, there was a lot of information 


about the incidents that happened, and it 


seemed to be minimized in the dose 


reconstruction. How’s that? 


MR. HINNEFELD: And we agree. 


MR. FARVER: And when I see things like 


that, I tend to question did the dose 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

308 

reconstructor tend to look at all the records. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): And so the action 


is what? 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s what I was going to 

ask. 

MR. SIEBERT: We know the dose reconstructor 

did look at the records because he used the 


polonium --


MR. FARVER: He used the wrong date. 


MR. SIEBERT: -- incident date instead of 


the plutonium. He may not have looked at it 


as closely as he could have. 


MS. BEHLING: And he didn’t include all of 


the bioassay so --


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): So a better 


description is going to be written? What? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, at this point we don’t 


intend to rework the dose reconstruction so, 


no, it should have been addressed. I don’t 


know --


MR. GRIFFON: Wait, wait, I’m confused 


because you did rework the dose 


reconstruction, didn’t you? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we did rewrite a new 


dose reconstruction report to send to the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

309 

claimant. The value of writing this 


description is to make sure the claimant knows 


that we heard them, and we know this, and we 


know these incidents occurred, and we should 


have described them. That’s why it should 


have been in the dose reconstruction report. 


But at this point there’s nothing makes us 


write a new dose reconstruction report and 


send it to the claimant. It would probably 


confuse everybody quite a bit because the case 


is adjudicated. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): There’s no 


purpose. It should have been done better and 


no action, right? 


MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


MR. FARVER: Probably your resolution would 


be that this one’s going to fall under your 


peer review procedure because we looked it up, 


and it does have information there about did 


you check the CATI. 


MR. GRIFFON: Well, it is another, I think 


these last two findings come under the QA 


cycle again --


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think there are a 


number of things --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

310 

MR. GRIFFON: -- the dates of the incident ­

-


MR. HINNEFELD: -- there are enough errors 


here that we’d say, yeah, you’re right that we 


need to think about what are we doing here, 


and are we being too casual by saying, well, 


it’s not going to affect the case and let it 


go. It could be that’s being too casual 


because it really hurts your credibility when 


^ because some of them are going to be found. 


And this kind of thing, some mistakes like 


that can be found by any reader, and those 


really, really hurt your credibility. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): We just want to do 


better next time. 


MS. BEHLING: Well, the dose reconstructor 


that did this, will this be brought to that 


person’s attention? 


MR. HINNEFELD: I can make sure that happens 


if you like. 


MR. SIEBERT: Also, do the individual who 


re-did the work and worked with Tom, so they 


are well aware. 


MR. HINNEFELD: So it was brought to their 


attention. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

311 

MS. BEHLING: I’m just curious because I 


thought that earlier we indicated that a dose 


reconstructor would be reassessing this, but 


it may not have been the individual --


MR. SIEBERT: It was the individual. 


MR. GRIFFON: Just to verify, Stu, I have 


the file pulled up so you did e-mail it on 


9/7. I hope you got those. 


MR. FARVER: I didn’t get them. 


MS. BEHLING: I know I got them. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Doug, are you on Procedures 


from now on as far as you know? 


MR. FARVER: No, not as far as I know. 


MR. GRIFFON: This isn’t Procedures though. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Dose reconstruction. Honest 


to god, I’m sorry. These meetings all look 


the same. It’s you and Wanda and me, and I 


talk all day. 


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I think it’s a wrap. 


Anything else to add before --


Wanda, my intention is to bring these 


back to the October meeting with our focus 


being on the fourth and fifth set to try to 


close them out as best we can. There’s still 


some, quite a few responses, not that many in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

312 

the fourth set, but some of them are fairly 


technical, but we want to try to close out the 


fourth, and if possible, the fifth and put the 


sixth set on the back burner for NIOSH right 


now just from a workload standpoint. But we 


would like to address those at the October 3rd
 

meeting, the 9:30 morning meeting for the 


subcommittee. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): Is there a 


possibility that we can utilize our matrix 


section section to put some notations about 


the discussion today and what actions we’re 


expecting? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, you missed that, too, 


earlier. I said that I was going to update 


the, especially the fifth matrix. I’ll 


definitely get an update on the actions for 


the fifth matrix so everybody’s on the same 


sheet of music. A lot of them have been 


closed out so the matrix will indicate that. 


And we’ll have a fresh matrix to look at with 


the program action column filled in. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): That would be very 


nice. What would be nice when we closed an 


item if we could gray the background on that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

313 

It would save every, certainly save me a great 


deal of grief. 


MR. GRIFFON: I can do that, too. We should 


have a few gray lines. I will do that. 


MS. MUNN (by Telephone): That’s helpful, 

thank you. 

DR. WADE (by Telephone): Thank you all very 

much, just a yeoman job. 

MR. GRIFFON: Thanks, Lew. 


All right, I think we’re adjourned. 


 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 


p.m.) 

______________________________ 

314 

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of Sept. 12, 


2007; and it is a true and accurate transcript 


of the testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


28th day of February, 2008. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102